POSTMODERNISM MURIEL SPARK

"probably" pervadethe text; it is a work in which questions
arecontinually being askedandleft tactically unanswered.
(Kemp, 1974,153)

There aremany points which canbe appliedto the narrative of
TheDriver's Seat.

The narratorof TheDriver's Seat,despiteher/his exact
knowledgeboth aboutthe presentandthe future, is no less
puzzledby Lise than other charactersare, and frequentlyutters
rhetorical questionswhereher thoughtsare concerned:"Who
knows her thoughts? Who cantell?" (DS 452). The novel is
strewnwith doubt-indicatorsand- insteadof "if'- "as if. " This
useof "as if' is crucially relatedto the important themeof the
subject:uncertainty aboutknowledge. The narrator doesnot
know what anybodythinks, because,in the first place,individual
consciousnessof every characteris in question. In the extreme
caseof Lise,,her plot appearsasher own grandnarrativewith her
own telos: death. In keepingwith Lyotard's definition of
"postmodernasincredulity toward metanarratives"(Lyotard xxiv),
no transcendentaml eaningor legitimate knowledge is to emerge
from Lise's narrative. Besides,making straight for her end,Lise
asa destiny-drivencreaturestandsfor the unconscious,and she
becomesa seriesof effectswithout any fathomablecause. As
for other characters,it is lucidly revealedthat eachof their
individual subjectivities is constructedwithin the dominant
discourseof society;there cannotbe so much subjectiveviews as
legitimate objectiveknowledge. This leadsto the position of
deconstruction,asCatherineBelsey puts it: "What is outsidethe

150

subjectconstitutessubjectivity; the subjectinvadesthe objectivity
of what it knows" (Belsey,2002,73). As if to be well awareof
this position, not only becauseof the problematic subjectivity of
the other characters,but alsobecauseof that of her/himself, the
narrator showsuncertainty and indeterminacywith "as if. "

The endingof TheDriver's Seatis told from thefuture view
of the murderer/victim: Richard runs to a car, "taking his chance
andknowing that he will at last be taken":

He seesalready the gleamingbuttons of the policemen's
uniforms, hearsthe cold andthe confiding, the hot andthe
barking voices, seesalreadythe holstersand epauletsand
all thosetrappingsdevisedto protect them from the
indecentexposureof fear andpity, pity and fear.
(DS 490 [my italics])

What is this trick aboutthe tensein the last paragraph? It is not
the narrator's flashforward or what Richard is thinking, but the
future he "already sees". Losing the sight of the present,he sees
his future told by Lise: "You'll get caught,but at leastyou'll have
the illusion of a chanceto get away in the car" (DS 490). He
takesin his destiny,driven by destiny,andnow alreadyseesits
destinationthoughhe could have chosenanotherway. It is
Richard who seeshis destructivedrive ending- and it will end-
in this way, but, asa narrative, it is a "speculative future" -
"future conditional."

The authordoesnot say at all that this endingshouldbe
taken asthe final judgment on the world, onus. Onthecontrary,
"We areinvited to supply the endingwe should like the story to

151

have- and in the processto supposeourselvessupersededby
somethingunimaginable" (Belsey,2002,106), asBelseytalks
about"A PostmodernFable" by Lyotard. His postmodernfable
alsobeginsat the end of the story,rendersthe subjectas"an
incidental by-product of a transitory condition of matter" (Belsey,
2002ý106)in the world which is not designedto work for any
human assumptionof its goal. Belsey doesnot considerthe
fable "pessimistic" because"it leavesthe future opew': "We are
not at the mercy,it indicates,of a malignant force, any more than
we arethe creationof a benevolentdesigner. Instead,what is
becomeof us is to somedegreein our hands" (Belsey,2002,107).
Spark's postmodernfable aswell leavesthe future open,compels
us to reflect upon it.

This extraordinarystudy of self-destructionby Sparkoffers
the intelligent reply Kristeva expectedin "Women's Time," and it
also answersto the writer's own declarationin "The
Desegregationof Art" (1971).

We havein this century a marveloustradition of socially-
consciousart. And especiallynow in the artsof drama
andthe novel we seeandheareverywherethe
representationof the victim againstthe oppressor,we have
a literature and an artistic culture, onemight almostsay a
civilization, of depictedsuffering, whether in social life or
in family life. Wehaverepresentationsof the victim-
oppressorcomplex .... As art this canbe badly done,it
canbe brilliantly done. But I am going to suggestthat it
isn't achievingits end or illuminating our lives any more,

152

andthat a more effective techniquecan andshouldbe
cultivated. CDA" 34)
In TheDriver's Seat,if the heroine- criminal/victim - is to stand
for the humancondition, how to take her figure is not for the
narratorto say. And, wherethe world is going, it is not for the
authorto say. It dependson eachindividual, every individual.
Spark's concernis not with "good" and"evil": shestatesthat
"Now, thereis only absurdity and intelligence" (1-5,1970,8).
Shehasalwaysbelieved in intelligence and carriedout her
resolution, her hope,to sharpenintelligence of peopleby her art of
fiction, which necessarilyhas an aggressiveandrebelliouspower,
asshepronouncedin "The Desegregationof Art. " Nevertheless,
to Spark,a study of self-destructionis certainly not the only way
to exploreher themes. Sparkcreatesnot only a woman asthe
subjectin the postmodemworld but alsosomewomen, who can
constitutethe postmoderns. ubject,who areno lesscontroversial
than Lise, but play their games. Yet, before openinga new
chapterfor theseSparkianwomen, the artist's study of the
"subjecf' in crisis hasto be ftirther examined.

153

CHAPTER IV

TBE MAKING OF TBE OTBER

"Absolutely immersedin the philosophy of LesUlres. "
- Symposium

SinceMuriel Sparkannounced"a sea-changein the natureof
reality" (T 91), the world going into the postmodemphase,in The
Takeover(1976), shehaskept a tight grip on her honourable
weaponof satire. Shehaskept her penetratingeyeson people
who get lost, more andmore, in the postmodemerain her later
works suchas Territorial Rights (1979), The Only Problem (1984),
Symposium(1990), andReality and Dreams (1996). Amongthe
works of Spark,thesenovels havebeenhardly discussedandmay
be particularly difficult onesto "read well. ,69 However, if we
look at them together,retrospectively,therearestrongechoes
amongthem. We may find in the writer's train of thought,which
hasbeenmore theorisedor developedat eachturn, a persistent
motif of the Other.

As postmodernphenomenahave intensified the
disconnectionsamongpeopleand the decentringsof the world,
Sparkhasbeenhandling problemsof the contemporarysubjectin

" In her sharp,concisereview of Symposium,Loma Sagepoints out the writer's
theorisingherself in her later works: "Here it's a matter of echoesof earliernovels-
for example,the part played by the servants,asin Not to Disturb" (Sage,1990,278).
In mentioning this, Sagewarns us not to imaginethat Sparkwrites the samebook
againand again. Togetherwith other critics like Kermode andNorman Page,she
emphasises"how hard she[Spark] is to readuvlr' (Sage,1990,278).

154

relation to its alterityý The incomprehensible,impenetrable
Other in her later novels no longer takesthe shapeof the
supernatural- like a mysterioustelephonecall - but may appear
in a guiseof a servant,a wife, a son,or a daughter. Somebody
oneknows but doesnot know becomesa threateningenigma. In
other words, it is this shift from the supernaturalto the Other
embodiedin onepersonor anotherand often going down to the
underworld that explicitly characterisesthe writer's greatinterest
in the subjectin the postmodernworld in her late novels.
Through questioningwhat is the Other or who is the Other,a
variety of issuesariseasto the constitution of subjectivity of each
individual in termsof postmodernphenomena.

It is the natureof the subjectin thoselate novelsthat

increases the intricacy of Spark's fiction: to reflect its thematic
concern, the subject in the postmodem world, the narrative is
divided, almost fragmented, in many small sections especially and
most obviously in Territorial Rights and Symposium, aswell as in
The Takeover. Spark dexterously weaves themes she deals with
into the pattern of disconnection and decentring, the elaborate
pattern of which every narrative sequence- even when it seems
perplexingly whimsical or dis ointed - is in fact a significant
component.

Furthermore, Spark is a writer who never adheresto the

samenarrativestyle, no matterhow extraordinaryit is.
Questioningthe subjectin the postmodemera,and in relation to
the Other,shehasfound an appropriatevoice for her themein a
new narrative style, which might seem,at first glance,

155

conventionalor lessinnovative. Using one of the traditional
narratorsof realism,the "confiding gossip" voice, to give the
effect of ingeniouspastichein TheTakeover,Sparkstarted
moving on from her remarkableexperimentswith the present-
tensenarrative andthe nouveauroman schemeof apparent
detachmentfrom thoughtsand feelings. In her late novels, she
exploresthe possibilities of making a uniquenarrative out of
omniscient,third-personnarration and its useof free indirect

style.
After TheTakeover- with the exceptionsof Loitering with

Intent andA Far Cryfrom Kensington- Spark alsocontinuesto
chooserather lacklustre typesof character. In both TheOnly
Problem andReality and Dreams,where Spark inclines to theorise
her themes,t,hereis a male characteraddictedto philosophising
whosepoint of view the narrator often deploys,but this focus
conferson her protagonistneither outstandingpersonalitynor the
statusof a non-n. In thesemale-centrednovels, thereis also a
figure of dubiety,of whom all other charactersthink and speak,
but none of thosedubiousfigures arrestsso much attentionfrom
the readersasit doesthat of the characters. Suchfigures appear
asthe Other andthe enigmatic focal point for other characters,but
they arenot the focal point of thenovel. The deliberateabsence
of any definite centreleavesthe readerin an evendeepermystery.

Among Spark's later novels, Syinposiuinmay be the most
amusing,yet disturbing exampleof her harshsatireon individuals
obliviously absorbedby the "sea-changein the natureof reality,"
lost in the postmodernworld. In Symposium,centringon the

156

themeof Otherness,Spark createsa woman who embodies"the
Other" andholds "the philosophy of LesAutres" (S 35) in her
plotting. The authorplays on this "philosophy," that is, the idea
of focusing on the others,to dealwith the paradoxical"central"
figure of the Other: "one" is lost while focusing on "the Other"
Accordingly, the figure of the woman emergesfrom the various
sketchesof the other characters,aswell asthe imagesof the Other
which they evoke and conceive. Similarly, the woman's plotting
is not only revealedas,but also framedin the discourseof the
Other in its various guises. Symposiumillustrates and discloses
this deceptivediscoursethat blinds one from seeingrealities of the
present,the world, othersand oneself,that makesthe Other of one,
from various angles.

Open Up the Present
Spark attachestwo epigraphs,cited from two different versionsof
Symposium,to her Symposium. As if to display her shrewd
capacityto belie commonexpectations,before the quotationfrom
Plato's Symposium- which is likely to be known to most readers
- sheputs the words from the much lessfamiliar Symposiumof
Lucian." Shemay well show a gestureof defying suchan idea
of literary genre,asshealways doesin practicing her art of fiction.
It would not be hard to readconnotationsof the secondepigraph
cited from Plato: Socrates'assertionthat "the geniusof comedy
was the samewith that of tragedy,and that the true artist in

70Symposium (tr. Loeb: The Carousao of Lucian and Symposium (Jowett
translation) of Plato are cited by Spark to preface her Symposium (S 5).

157

tragedywas an artist in comedyalso." In this novel that kind of
dichotomousway of thinking in generalis to be ridiculed.
However, the actualeventsof the novel follow the first epigraph
from Lucian more or lessliterally: "the party was finally broken
up by the sheddingof blood."

The main plot revolves arounda party given by a happily
unmarried couple,Chris Donovan, a wealthy Australian widow
andHurley Reed,an American painter. To assistthe party are
Charterhousefrom the Top-OneSchool of Butlers and a
handsomestudent,Luke. Among the guests,MargaretDamien,
ndeMurchie,-is the centreof attention,becauseof her pastwhich
hasmadeher "the passivecarrier of disaster"(S 143),andbecause
of the money of Hilda Damien, anAustralian tycoon, whoseonly
sonMargaret recently married. The hostsand someother guests,
talking andthinking a lot aboutthis striking red-haired,Scottish
girl, suspecther of evil intentions. Hilda too, who hasplannedto
give the newlywed couplea picture by Monet asa surprisegift, is
afraid of her daughter-in-law. Believing that Margaretknows
abouther acquisition of the picture but doesnot know that it is a
wedding present,Hilda evenhasa premonition that the girl may
kill her for the picture. Certainly,Margaret is tired of being
suspectedonly becauseshehas alwayshappenedto be closeto
unfortunateevents,feeling guilty for nothing. Margaretis
plotting to kill Hilda, not for the picture but for becomingan
active agentof evil; Hilda is murderedfor her Monet thoughnot
by Margaretbut by robbersand indirectly by their domestic
informers, the butler andLuke.

158

Thus in Symposium,thereis a party, andthereis a robbery,
going on at the sametime, in the presenttense. As if destiny
joined a masqueradet,he party is on stage,the robbery- except
for a glimpse of the crucial moment- off stage. All events
precedingthe time of the party andthe robbery - October 18th,St
Luke's day,to be precise- arenarratedin the pasttense. This
temporal structureinvites scrutiny as a device for us to gain a
perspective,to get the whole picture of the novel. Thereis
always a quasi-divinetouch abouthow Sparkmanipulates
narrative time for various effects." In Symposium,the narrator
tracesback characters'lives to various points in the past,and also
gives awaythe end at the early stageof the novel - not in fature-
tenseflashforwards(asin TheDriver's Seat)or in an preternatural
scenarioby a character(asin Not to Disturb), but in the present-
tenseframework. The questionis why it is this presentmoment
to which charactersand pasteventsaroundthem aredirected.

The point of the novel lies in a separationof charactersfrom
the actuality of the present. The main problem is their incapacity
to seewhat is happeningin reality rather than their incapability to
foreseethe endof an event. Only the omniscient,omnipresent
narratorknows exactly both what is happeningandwhat is going
to happen,and can impart infon-nation- someimeswith apparent
relevance,at otherstimes With seeminglycapriciousirrelevance-
to the reader. The connectionbetweenthe party andthe robbery
in questionis gradually revealed,though it hasbeensuggested

11'Mere is a complex useof time-shifis in ThePrime ofMiss Jean Brodie, aswell as
in her present-tensenovels. For details,seemy discussionof ThePrime ofMiss
Jean Brodie in ChapterVII andthe chapteron TheDriier's Seat.

159

from the outset. The first chapterconsistsof a sceneof a house
wreckedby a gangof thievesandthe party scene. As this
robbery in the first chapter,a preludeto the robbery at the end,
takesplaceoneweek before the party, it is a scenein the past
tense. The motif of robberybridgesthe time gapbetweenthe
two separatescenes,but thereremainsa wider gap asan actual
robberybecomesmeretalk. Moreover, when put into words, the
robbery at this beginning is alreadyremovedfrom actuality,very
noticeably so, forged into somethingremote and different from
what it is.,by the ridiculous owner of the wreckedhouse,a Lord
Brian Suzy. Here alreadyis a patternof charactersblind to what
is going on under their noses.

Lord Suzy opensthe novel with his hysterical cry, "This is
rape!" though "it was not rape,it was a robbery" (S 7), asthe
narrator sardonicallycorrects. By chance,Lord Suzy andhis
wife Helen were sleepingduring the robbery and did not notice at
all what was going onjust downstairs,and so escapeda possible
consequenceof being murderedby the thieves. In the following
party scene,Lord Suzy,asone of the guests,dominates
conversationswith tediousaccountsof his robbery. He andhis
fellow guestsaretalking, unawareof anotherrobbery,which is
simultaneouslytaking place. Similarly, a little later in another
party scene,when they arementioning Hilda, who is tojoin the
party after the dinner,the narrator intervenesand informs the
readerthat this Australian magnatewill not comebecause"she is
dying, now, asthey speaV (S 45). Finally, with the newsof
Hilda's murder,the reality of the presenthits them asthe

160

inevitable destiny of the event,smashestheir false assumptions,
andleavesthem with irretrievable possibilities for a different

ending.
"SeeingThings from the End," the title of Loma Sage's

review of Symposium,aptly points to a vital motif of thenovel,
this playing with possibilities and destiny. Sagediscerningly
quotesthe scenedescribingthe menu at the party, which the two
hostshave chosenafter lots of consideration,asa witty "joke
about freedom" (Sage,1990,277):

The menu could so easily havebeenhot salmonmousse,
not cold, followed by that thin-sliced duck, or lobster on a
bed of cabbagewith raspberryvinegar... The homely
pheasant... their final triumphant choice, is delicious.
(S45)

"The senseof patterningis inexorable," as Sageemphasises:
"Things could havebeendifferent, but it so happensthey're not.
If you seeeventsfrom the end (like their author) you catcha
glimpse of our true unfreedom" (Sage,1990,277). It is true that
eachindividual choice itself canbe a contingentfactor in the
destiny of an event,and that this endcannotbe different from
what it turns out to be onceit has come. Nonetheless,t,hings
could have beendifferent becausethereare choicesbefore the end.
Human assumptionsare doomedto be futile before destiny,but
what is more futile is to live the presentmoment not in termsof
the reality at hand,but in termsof a false idea aboutdestiny,
which in any caseis unforeseen. And if we seethis novel from
the endwe notice that the end of the party is not the endof the

161

story.

In the last chapter,leaving the charactersat the presently
broken-upparty, the narrator soonmovesto the brief final section
that tells aboutthe next morning for a minor character,a rich
businessmanwho recently met Hilda on his journey, andherethe
narration movesinto the future tense. Hilda andher Rely suitor
instantly recogniseda suitablecompanionin eachother,andmight
have expecteda happy consequenceto come. But this story of
Andrew J. Barnet andHilda is no longer going to happen. There
is a certainironic ambiguity aboutthe endingthat describesthe
anticipatedreaction of the devastatedMr Barnet. Are we to
assumethe narratorknows a story after the day of the party as
well asstoriesup till the presentmoment? Probably. And
whetherthe answeris yes or no, it seemsthat the additional story
in the future tenseis meantto be more like a parody of the act of
assuming. The man of the story looks not only like a suitable
partnerfor Hilda, but also a suitablememberfor the party.
However sincerelyhe feels for Hilda, the sectionconcentrateson
his reaction andwhat he will do.,ratherthan getting into his
thoughts. Above all, the last sentence,"He will want more than
anything to talk, to tell them [his ffiends] how he had met Hilda
Damien" (S 192),soundsasmuch an ironic commentaryon him
ason the other charactersin the contextof the novel. Insteadof
the reality of Hilda's unfortunatedeath,he may well choosehis
lucky chancestory - whosehappy end is no longer possible- as
his only resort.

The last scenein the future tenseleavesa subtleopenspace.

162

Whetheror not Andrew Barnet is going to do what the narrator
foretells, unlike Hilda, his life is still going on and it is up to him
how he placesthe expectationshatteredby her unfortunatedeath,
aswell asthe fortunateencounterwith her, in the whole courseof
his life. Whenhe met Hilda on the plane,he might haveknown
that he had thepresentmoment at hand,if he meantwhat he said
- evenif it were simply presumedwith easeof the rich. To
Hilda's remark that sheusedto be afraid of flying but got over it,
he said: "One does. Best not to think aboutit. Destiny is
destiny,after all. Justrelax, asyou say. At least,there's
nothing we can do, so we might aswell enjoy it" (S 170). In a
sense,destinyis nothing but the way of seeing,seeingthings from
the end. The novel itself, telling things from the end,effectively
createsthe senseof destiny,but that is not to say it is about
destiny,a future that peoplecannotsee. Rather,what the author
actually suggestsis that peoplehave a problem of not seeing,not
graspingthe presentwhich they inhabit; that they are out of touch
with their own here-and-now,

In Symposium,the narrator allows the readerto seewhat
characterscannotseeand do not see. Besides,t,hanksto the
frequentand deliberateuseof free indirect style, what they think
or feel is very much transparent,so much so that it producesan
effect of irony. In their inner thoughtsand feelings,the notion of
the Other enters. The more the narratorshowsthesecharacters
fiddling with questionsabout"the Other," the more disturbingly
eachthinking/feeling self is destabilised. Although many
charactershavea falsepattern of oneversusthe Other in mind, no

163

oneis setup asthe centraloneto define the Other within the
whole picture of the novel. Thereis no simple, overall pattern of
dichotomy. The useof free indirect style makesan apparent
contrastbetweencharacters'assumptionsandthe narrator's
knowledge,but the important differencebetweencharacters'
perspectives- or rather,a lack of any- and the narrator's
perspectivedeservesfurther more careful attention.

For instance,in his "A Bit of the Other: Symposium,Futility
and Scotland" (2002), Alan Freemanrightly choosesSpark's
Symposiumasdisplaying peoplewho aredisconnectedin a
seeminglystableassemblageandthe world in a stateof flux. As
he suggests,charactersin this novel betray their solipsism,despite
their cosmopolitanlife style and attitudes,andthey appearto have
no meansto reachmore certainknowledge of anotherworld
unknown to them. Discussing"otherness"asa key component
in any centralor teleological discourse,he laboursto show how
this "otherness"- in this case,Scottishness- is imposedon
Margaret,who therebyembodies"the relation of metropolitan
centrality and Scottishmarginality" (Freeman138).
Unsurprisingly perhaps,he concludesthat the novel "points to the
futility of any attemptto impose" the generallabel of "otherness"
(Freeman137),rather than the specificsof Scottishness.

Freemanis right to point out the futility of the dominant
classwho interpret reality and attemptto include and assimilate
the othernessinto their discourse- but thereby intensify division
andhierarchy amongindividuals and cultures. It is easyto say
that here.,on a nasty,authorial canvas,is the picture of collapsed

164

human assumptions,which canbe generalisedin a neatpattern of
colonial discoursesand construedidentities. However,
Freeman'sway of seeingthis novel, fitting it into a single
discourseof postcolonialism,seemsasdeductiveandreductive as
the practice of the cosmopolitanelite he criticises. Symposium
offers a much more complicatedpicture, and inside the frame of
this novel we literally fmd variouspictures,which subtly expose
problematic discoursesaffecting their ownersor authors. If we
pay attentionto how the charactersbuy, lose,value, paint, seeor
do not seethosepictures, the richly layeredthemeof Otherness
emergesin quite different perspectives.

On the Market
In Symposium,freely introducing variouspaintings and skillfully
linking them to her theme,Muriel Sparkexposesan ever-growing
consumerculture in contemporarylife. Shehad alreadygiven a
small but important part to onepainting in The Takeover,the
novel set aroundthe year 1973,when- accordingto the narrator-
the completemutation of the meaningof money andproperty
cameabout. A painting by Gauguinownedby anAmerican
multimillionaire, Maggie Radcliffe, gives rise to a fuss: is
"Maggie's GauguiW'genuineor fake?(T 116). Sparkfindsthe
painting, which reproducesthe relation betweenthe owner and
his/her property both figuratively andsymbolically, a suitable
motif to bring into play the obsessionwith ownership,asJohn
Bergerhad donein his WaysofSeeing publishedin 1972. Berger
provides greatinsights andraisesworthy questions;he takesthe

165

traditional oil painting - from 1500to 1900- to probe "the
relation betweenproperty and art in Europeanculture"(Berger
109). He convincingly argues:"Oil painting did to appearance
what capital did to social relations. It reducedeverythingto the
equality of objects. Everything becameexchangeablebecause
everything becamea commodity" (Berger 87). Becauseof
demandsof the art market,the oil painting formed its peculiar
tradition, within which marketableworks at oncemadeproperty
tangible andhid the obsessionof ownershipbehind impersonal,
moral masks. Bergerpoints out that only someexceptional
paintersindividually struggledagainst,broke up with the tradition
of the averagepainting, andtherebyfracturedthis tradition
coercedby the art market.

Sparkshowsthat the Gauguinpainting still occupiesits
significant placeto illustrate the relation betweenart andproperty
in the contemporaryworld, and it is the world wherethe value of
the exceptionalpainting asan artwork is alreadyretranslatedinto
its market value of a commodity. Like thosewho belongto a
bourgeoiscircle in The Takeover,a smartcircle of peoplein
Symposiumknows the market value of paintings in oneway or
another,and a few of them can evenafford "a Monet." Entering
the last decadeof the twentieth century,they simply seemto have
becomeusedto suchmutation in the meaningof money and
property so well - or rather too well - that they cannotseewhat is
going on aroundthem any better than thosewho were at a loss in
the changingworld of 1973. Theserich peopledo not yet realise
that they areplacedon the market aswell: the painting asa

166

commodity reflects its owner asa commodity.
Around two valuablepaintings,Symposiumtells two

anecdotesof a loss of individual subjectivity with an ironical
contrast. The opening accountof Lord Suzy andhis Francis
Bacon painting may draw a mocking laugh, the tale of Hilda and
her Monet may causepity and fear,but both meetin the absurdity
of a situation in which eachindividual standsinsulatedfrom every
reality, from others,and from him or herself. At the beginning, a
gang of thievestakeminor valuablesfrom the Suzys,wreck and
urinate all over their house,but leavebehind a very expensive
picture by FrancisBacon on the wall. At the end,the samegang
kills Hilda to stealher Monet. In eachcase,the ownershipof the
painting is symbolically relatedto a stateof the owner's

subjectivity.
From the beginning, Lord Suzyappearsasa man devoid of

interiority: his hereditarytitle is empty,and so is his identity. As
if to confimnthat he hasnothing but this title, the narrator-
unusually in this novel - recordshis words only in direct speech
and doesnot usefree indirect style to show his thought or feeling.
However, if only for his title, Lord Suzy's namemust havebeen
promising to the gang,though what they actually took wasmostly
wedding presents,which "don't seemto keepmarriagestogether"
(S 10) in the opinion of the third Lady Suzy. William, Hilda's
son,may be right when he thinks "that they [thieves] express
contemptonly when they don't find much to steal" (S 187). This
offers a possibleexplanationfor why Lord Suzy's houseis
urinated all over by the thieves. In this context,the expensive

167

painting left on the wall assumesa satirical meaning,especially
alongsidethe fact that Lord Suzy is going to keep this surviving
property in a bank. The owner andthe gangareone andthe
samein their consumeristvalue system,in their disregardof the
value of the painting as an artwork. No painting to stealis found
on the wall; no "subjective self' to loseis found in Brian Suzy.

To this man of purely titular identity, his family is even
more unknown to andunconnectedwith him than thievesin
whosevalue systemand operationsBrian Suzyparticipatesbut
neverunderstandsashis own. Significantly, it is from his young
wife Helen that the readerlearnsthat he is going to put the
painting in the bank. Helen correspondswith Pearl,Brian"s
daughterfrom his secondmarriage,for they were schoolmates.
In the text, Helen's lettersaretwice inserted,casuallyand almost
asif at random,andjust ascasually,the painting is mentionedin
both her letters. Shecomplainsfrankly aboutBrian's miserly
andridiculous attitude,but aboveall.,it is in his plan of putting the
painting in the bank that sheperceivesan unbridgeablegap
betweenherself andher husband. Suchobsessionwith money
andproperty makesno senseto her,while sheis willing to
wheedlemoney from Brian for Pearl or to persuadehim to take
her on a trip. Knowing nothing aboutsuchexchangesbetween
his wife andhis daughter,he is cut off from his next of kin. To
him,,this youngergenerationis the Other,an Otherwhich
constitutesa real threat to his imaginary identity sustainedby the
hereditary title.

In many aspects,Hilda Damien is a completeoppositeto

168

Lord Suzy. Comparedwith the man for whom everything
dependson his title, sheis an independentbusinesswomanwho,
starting asa poor widow, hasmademoney- greatwealth - on her
own. However,this doesnot meanthat, unlike him, shehasa
genuinely stableidentity. Despitebeing a practical and
substantialwoman, Hilda appearsasdrastically disconnectedfrom
her sensible,strongself onceshebeginsto perceiveherself asan
object of the Other's gaze. Her problem, in fact, is that sheis so
substantialthat shecanbe identified with the prospering
consumerculture. Owning five newspapers- sheherself usedto
be aj oumalist - plus a chain of departmentstores,shehastraded
in every kind of commodity,including infort-nation. It is a
simple matter of fact for her to seethings in a consumeristvalue
system. In her secretdreamof finding an "equal" companion,
her perfect match should be somebodywho has an equalvalue to
her own - of which sheis well aware- so that shecanreasonably
feel at easewith him, asshewould with a fair exchange. Sheis
too much usedto sucha way of seeingher relationswith herself,
with others,with the world in which the consumerculture is
overtly dominant:sheis a triumph of the consumerculture
herself

That Hilda dies for her Monet doesnot necessarilymean
that sheis to be condemnedfor her consumeristview. The point
is that it is simply absurdto seethings - let aloneherself- only in
that way. In a consumeristvalue systemthat reffies every social
relationship, it could be easyfor Hilda to seeherself asan object,
distancingherself from who sheis. The gazeof the Other is

169

inherentinside her though shemay well fear Margaret's malicious
gaze,for this daughter-in-lawactually desiresto kill her.
Threatenedby the gazeof the unknowableOther,Hilda develops
her idea of Margaretas an embodimentof evil and comesto see
herself through "the evil eye" of Margaret. Sincethereis no
accessto the viewpoint of the incommunicableOther- and
besides,it seemsmerely an abstractideamisconceivedin a shape
of Margaret- Hilda inevitably misconceivesher self-imageas
well. Shestartsto ask an impossiblequestionof herself:what
Margaretwants from her. In her confusedmind, Hilda returnsto
her familiar consumeristview and decidesthat it must be the
Monet - only to increaseher irrational fear of destiny and for her
destiny. The narrator comments:"Why Hilda, an even-headed
woman, shouldimagine herself to be in dangerbecauseof the
Monet, merely, can only be explainedby the panic that Margaret
provoked in her" (S 176). Hilda mixes up her self-imageasthe
object of the Other with anotherself-image,that is, herself asthe
object for the acquisitive consumeristview.

Hilda's lost senseof subjectivity andthe theft of her Monet,
the expensivepicture by the greatImpressionist,appearto have an
ironical connection. However,her caseis not like that of Brian
Suzywhich is concernedwith his obsessionwith property andhis
ridiculous aristocraticact of hoarding an artwork in the bank.
What is at stakeis rather that sheseesherself reducedto a
commodity exchangeablewith her Monet, not just in the list of the
rich for thieves,but in her own mind. In doing so andby doing
so, sheunderestimatesherself. Chris, Hilda's "equal" but also

170

her truly caring friend (a friendship betweenwomen seemsthe
bestpossibility of relationship in this novel), noticesthat Hilda is
not herself and advises:"If I were you, ... I would keepthe
picture and go right back home. You're a sensiblewoman,
you're a brilliant woman .... I've neverknown you like this
before"(SI81). But Hilda cannotrecogniseherself asthe
woman Chris describes,andinsteadadheresto her plan to give the
painting to the couple in the hopethat it may sweetenup
Margaret: "what more canshewant?" (S 182). By this
unconsciouscalculation,Hilda tradesher gift into an offer to
exchangethe Monet for herself.

To Margaret,who aspiresfor her "subjective self that is,
accordingto her distortedvision, to becomean active agentof evil
- obviously, the Monet is not at all enoughfor what shewants:
Hilda asthe object of her desireto kill. The currencyin
Margaret's mind is subjectivity, which paradoxically provesto be
everunattainablebetweenobjects,asit is irreducible to the
equality of exchangeableobjects. Margarettries to gain her
subjectivity in exchangefor taking Hilda's life, but her
objectification of Hilda backfires. Before her plot of Hilda's
murder canget underway,Hilda becomesthe object in every sense,
losesher subjectivity and alsoher life. Consequently,nothing
remainsfor Margaretto taketo be a "subject."

That the Monet costsHilda's life in the end is an ironically
fair exchange. No doubt, asa commodity for thieves,the name
of Hilda Damien is asvaluable asthat of Monet. The owner
imitatesthe work of art in the samefate to be reducedto the

171

market value,,the exchangevalue, the object. Among the
exceptionalartistsBergermentions,Monet asa masterof
Impressionismonceupon a time underminedthe traditional
relation betweenart and property. In Symposium,the London
painting by Monet underminesthe contemporaryconsumervalue
systemby making the loss of its owner's subjectivity tangible.

The seeminglysecureand stablecircle of peopleat the
party, asa whole, is put to the test, its relationship with reality
questioned,and its disintegrationexposed,though in a lessdrastic
way than that worked out for Hilda. While eachof them hashis
or her own solipsistic thought, or self-delusion,or assumptions,
both the hostsandthe guestsdependon a deceptivesenseof
connectionaroundthe illusory centrethe party provides. As
exchangesreplacerelationships,the inevitable necessityof the
Other andthe instability of the subjectasa result echoin their
small community, and thoseechoesconvergeon the occasionof
the party. Concerningthe natureof the party, a crucial question
arises. At somepoint, Chris reflectsupon the "parable in the
Bible aboutsendingout to the highways andbyways to makeup a
dinner party - therewas a questionof the host being at a loss
becausenone of his guestscould come" (S 85).72 Here Chris
comescloseto perceiving what is lacking in their view: what the
host is without the presenceof the guests;what one canbe
without the Other.

Insofar asthe party is a parable,in this novel, what one can
be to oneself,not to the Other,is at issue. It questionsone's

" Luke 14: 15-24.

172

subjectiveself, which is lost in a mechanicalcalculation and
exchangeaccordingto the consumeristvalue system. Thereis
always an undercurrentof expectation;nothing is really gratuitous.
As the goodhoststhink over the coursemenu to entertaintheir
selectedguests,this selectionof guestsitself too hasto be given
lots of thought: the Untzingers cangive an intelligent touch,
Annabel Treeceis a television producerand her programmewhich
is to featureHurley asan artist would count, young Roland Sykes
caneventalk to a tree,,and so on. Theseguestsindeedcometo
form a charmingmask/masquefor a miniature network of the
exchangevalue andto unite asone stablecommunity, which
needsthe Other anywhereoutside- suchasMargaret asa
newcomer,or servants. Mutual reification among"equals"
maintainsa relatively smoothsurfaceowing to their apparent
bourgeoismoresthough not so much in the youngergenerationof
their own society. The crack inside them is evidentwhen "the
party is virtually over" (S 189), almostcoinciding with the arrival
of young peopleled by Pearl, evenbefore the news of Hilda's

murder.
Following the parablein the Bible, in their private talk,

Chris andHurley go so far asto contemplateinviting the lower
classesin casethe original guests,the host's equals,become
unavailable. Expressingmuch affection for the lower classes,
both of them seemto transform the necessityof guestsinto a
favour to the poor and so fall into the fallacy of thinking
themselvesasproviders. But, asMargaret's mad uncle says,
'Troviders areoften disliked, often despised"(S 159),probably

173

becausethey havelittle to provide, or they arenot providers at all
- asin the particular instanceof Margaret,to whom Hilda cannot
be a provider. Accordingly, CharterhouseandLuke serve
flawlessly at the party, while behind the scenes,r,ather than
expectinga favour, they have alreadysummedup the value of

eachguest.
The servantsparticipate in the samecommerceastheir

employers', a commontradebetweenan object and an object,but
in a different market. Under a professionalcriminal like
Charterhouse- whosenamecannotbe his own any more than are
his documents- Luke takeson asa fruitful part-timejob the work
of selling his employersthrough selling anothercommodity- his
information - andto the extentthat this indirect, mediatedact
obscuresany feel of guilt. As if to makethis exchangebetween
employersand their employeestrictly equal,the value of the
Untzingers,Luke's original "providers," only lies in that they
enablehim to have accessto more valuable objectssuchasChris,
and a real magnatelike Hilda.

To def-methemselvesasrespectableproviders to the self-
supportingstudent,Ernst andElla Untzinger pretendto offer a
kind, patronisingrelationship- mealsor drinks but not money-
to Luke. To a degreehe is a substitutefor their daughter,who
hasmarried andleft, but underneathhe is the object of desireand
fear to both of them. While he getsalong well with his own
shadybusiness,they suspecthim of getting a largesum of money
in return for sexualfavours. They eachfantasiseabouthim as a
"whore" (S 184)in their repressedsexualobsessionsandthink

174

that it is bestnot to act on their fantasies- howevermuch they
fancy suchan exchange. They areunited mainly by their fear of
Luke - explicitly linked to their fear of AIDS - asthe dangerous
Other. They do not actually know him. Rather,they conceive
the idea of the unknown Other asremoteand abstract. And
perhaps,asthey suspect,Luke doesnot know himself either,and
he endsup a petty criminal.

To calculatethe price of an artwork in his mind is Ernst's
habit: "Ernst knew it was a ffightful habit, but he told himself it
was realistic; and it was too exciting altogethereverto give up,
this mental calculation of what beautywas worth on the current
market'' (S 26). This is no surprisesinceit is the way of seeing
things, others,and oneselfthat permeatesthe community to which
he belongs,andmay well be realistic accordingto the reality in
their community. As they continuouslyfocus on the imagesof
the Otherto haveone exchangeafter another,relationships
betweeneachother andwith oneselfareforgotten andlost.

In the Asylum
In the middle of the noveL the authorinsertsone chapterwhich
standson its own, totally different from every other section,and
provides a decidedlyridiculous counterpartto the party with one
of the oddestlocations. This chapteraboutthe Anglican convent
of Mary of GoodHope seemsasif it were a brief, whimsical
interlude- though it is given almostthe samecoverageasthe
divided party scenesin total - only to highlight Margaret's
questionablepast. The modestconventrun by Marxist nuns is

175

apparentlyan extremeoppositeto the rich circle of Islington, but
the two communitieshave somesimilarities in structureand in
their fate relatedto intruding others. Insteadof a gangof thieves,
a television crew cometo make a documentaryfilm of the
unconventionalconvent. It is aroundthe time when Margaret,
then Miss Murchie, was alsoadmittedinto the nine-nun
community asa novice, yearsbefore the dinner party for ten, to
which sheis to be invited asWilliam's spouse. Like the party,
the nunnery falls apartbecauseof a death,the murder of a young
nun. And thereis also an artist: like the host of the party, the
Novice Mistressis a painter.

SisterMarrow - a.k.a. the four-letter nun - andher
unfinished mural painting on the refectory wall form a lucid
contrast,both asa reflection and a reversedimage,with Hurley
Reedandhis paintings. Their paintings carry quite different
values accordingto quite different systems,andthey havequite
different styles- though both lay claim to realism. The two
artists andtheir works curiously representhow they seethe world
in eachof their communities,andhow they areseenin the world.
Theserepresentationsb, rought togetherinto anotherintriguing
picture by andthrough the eye of intruders,overlapwith the
themeof the subjectin termsof the Other.

Most clearly,the contrastbetweenSisterMarrow's painting
andHurley's aims at a criticism of the consumeristvalue system.
The mural painting by the femaleartist is, indeed,not for saleor
on the market: it is outsidethe consumeristart-marketrelation
betweenart andproperty. Her work of art is given great

176

significancein the conventwhere everybodymakesherself useful,
in the way Marxism proposesa spacefor what is outsidethe use
value. But then, it is regardedasimportant not purely for art, but
more aspropaganda- it is "a depiction of the sceneat the railway
station in St Petersburgon 16April 1917,when Vladimir llich
Ulyanov known asLenin arrived from Switzerlandto be met by a
greatcrowd of comrades"(S 113),asMargaret explainswith an
excessivedegreeof precision.

The subjectsof Hurley's paintings aremuch closerto the
life in the convent- for instance,a nurseof the Red Cross. His
choiceof suchsubjectscould be a facile solution for his dilemma:
"If the public thinks you're too well off they figure the art must be
superficial, and if you're poor they think there's somethingwrong
with the art, andwhy doesn't it sell?" (S 58). This might be an
unconsciousexpressionof his ambivalentview, or his suppressed
cynical view, of the consumeristvalue system. WhetherHurley
is awareof the ordinarinessof his talent or not, Chris' abundant
financial supporthasestablishedhim asa successftilpainter,and
perhaps,he might try to makeup for his commercialsuccesswith
a subjectthat showsno interestin consumerism. He might envy
the freedomof SisterMarTow's artwork.

Regardlessof this remotenessof the subjectto his own life,
Hurley's painting style reflects the reality of the community he
belongsto, of a world wherethe reality is equivalentto the
appearance. Any realism in Hurley's painting is a kind of
photographicexactitude,which gives the impressionof a
noticeably artificial, wooden flatness. This artificiality of his

177

realism seemsto suggestthat Hurley unwittingly reproducesthe
unreal reality of the world in his paintings. The reportedfact
that Hurley is "an anti-Canaletto"in his painting and "anti lots of
things" (S 32) in generalindicatesa fundamentaluncertainty
aboutthe reality he paints. In his conveniently authoritarian
view, what looks right is real andwhat looks real is right, andhe
hasto be "anti lots of things" to defmeandbelieve that his reality
is real andright.

The realism of SisterMarrow's painting is very different
from that of Hurley's. Interpretationsof her painting give rise to
questionsasto what a processof image-makingdoesto the
relation betweenthe reality and the appearancea, nd specifically
asto how the world seesthe odd nunnery. A most hilariously
satirical sceneoccursin a conversationaboutthe mural painting
betweenthe nuns and a young television producer,Rita Jones:

"Is that a dragon?" saidMiss Jones,avid for symbolism.
"No, it's the sketchof a train. A steamtrain," said

SisterLome loud and clear.
"Oh, a train,"' saidMiss Jones. "Would that be

Freudian?"

"Freudian my arse," said SisterMarrow in a booming
voice from the doorway.

"Are thosesaints?" said one of the cameracrew,a
slight and sensitive-lookingyouth.

"Saints? What do you mean?" said SisterLome.
(SI12)

Here Margaret,a competentnew novice, interruptswith her

178

rigorous explanation,but thenthe conversationgoeson about
Lenin's comradesmistakenassaints:

"You give them haloes,then?" saidMiss Jones.
"Those are fur hats,you silly cow," mutteredSister
MarTow. (S 113)
Rita's final attemptto find a religious significancein a God-like
figure turns into confusion asthe figure in questionturns out to be
Karl Marx. lt is a matter of an expectation. The world of the
majority outsidethe conventis eagerto pin them down asthe
Other in symbolical or religious terms. The television crew and
their audiencedraw on theseterms of speculationin their effort to
interpret SisterMarrow's masterpiece. In reality, the practical
life of nine nuns canlay claim to a stark realism: the nuns areas
much realistic in their activity asthe painting is realistic in its
representation. The very word "realism" hasentereda

postmodernphaseof multiplicity.
As the television crew also follow the nunsto film their

main activity of hospital visiting, staff andpatientsresistthe
intrusion that changesthe supposedlygratuitousact into a
commodity. Working to a different purpose,the active,
independentcommunity asa whole is now reified by the media
and servedup to the public asan object. The conventis no
longer an "asylum from the capitalist-consumersystem" (S 115),
on the onehand. On the otherhand,significantly, Sister
Marrow's mural still escapesthe consumeristvalue system. Her
four-letter speechescannotbe totally modified for the public
either, evenin the film with its editing process. Yet, the mural is

179

to remain unfinished, and so is the Marxist Mission, which the
painting propagatesand SisterLome, the deputy Superior,takesin
her hands. The disintegrationof the conventis triggeredby the
intrusion though it haslittle to do with reification, and it is Sister
Lome who admitsthem into the community andpresentsits self-
imageasthe Other.

Tbrough the camera,the conventis at oncefixed in its
public imageandis stabilisedin its self-imageby this public
image:the public image of the conventasthe Other to the world
of majority is in parallel with its self-imageasthe oppositionto
the capitalist-consumersystem. From the marginalisedbut
stableplace of the Other,the nunnery,whoseunconventional
order hasalreadybeenopposedto that of the Church,takesan
opportunity to spreadthe Marxist mission to the outsideworld.
However, it is not the mission but the solidity of their activities
and dutiesby which thosedifferent individuals areunited. The
youngernuns,thoughthey do not find themselvesin the same
self-image,dutifully follow the older,politicised nuns,who hardly
careabouttheir vows or the discipline.

When the mural in the refectory is exposedto the public,
both SisterLome and SisterMarrow persistin the authentic-
which is, in their cause,authorial- interpretationof the painting.
SisterMarrow's rigour essentiallyderivesfrom her wild
temperament,from her rageat any view of "the crapulouspublic"
(Slll). SupportingSisterMarrow, againstRita, SisterLome
insiststhat "You must get your points of referenceright" (S 113).
In SisterLome, the undisciplined individualism sheshareswith

180

SisterMarrow turns into her authoritarianism;sheis not unlike
Hurley who regardshimself asan authority both on art and artists.
SisterLome backsup SisterMarrow's mural or her four-letter
words to back up the mission, and doesso through her own

authorial voice.
SisterLome, betweenher undisciplined individualism and

her authoritarianism,falls into solipsism at its extreme. The
reality of life in the conventcomescloseto being lost in her
almostunreal ambition for the Marxist mission. Now using the
media doing the profile of the conventfor her campaign,she
adoptsthe usevalue insteadof the exchangevalue, but the
nunneryruled by her Marxist discourseis not different from the
Islington circle dominatedby their bourgeois/aristocratic/
consumeristdiscoursesin that they areequally underthe threat of
the gazeof the Other. Preoccupiedwith the self-image,shesees
othersonly in the light of their usefor her and admitsthem under
suchguisesinto the convent,but doesnot seetheseintrudersso as
to return their gazes. Not only the television crew behindthe
camera,b, ut alsoher own husband,a farmer dressedasa curateon
his visit to the convent,is amongthe intruders. Shejustifiesthe
fact that shehasa husbandby her unconvincing and
unsophisticatedrhetoric: "Ecology comesbefore vows" (S 116).
Her vows to God are dismissed,a, nd a man andmoremen intrude
the femalecommunity. And hereis Margaret under a nun's veil,
too.

The position of Margaret in the conventis the biggest
differencefrom the party scene. Although sheis filmed together

181

with the nine nuns,,within this community sheis not the centreof
attention;for the first andthe last time in the whole novel, sheis
off-centre. The convent,instead,is the object of her observation,
aboutwhich shewrites to her father behind the scenes. The lack
of descriptionsaboutthe characteristicsof her appearancein this
chaptermay explain her relative obscurity in the convent. For
onething, her striking red hair is underher nun's veil. For
another,the nuns areunlikely to notice her protruding teeth,which
areelsewherelinked to sexiness. A good few men areobsessed
- and if not sexually,certainly fascinatedor attracted- by
Margaret or by her image. In contrastwith her feeling of
alienation and a kind of homesicknessat the party, sheseemsto
feel at home in the nunnery,enjoying being an observerrather
than the object of observation. Moreover, thereshehasa female
guru, insteadof her uncle.

Margaret comesto attendto the Mother Superior. Reading
Margaret's letter,Magnus somehowimaginesthis old woman
being in an attic. Whetherhe seesmadnessin her or not, mad
Magnus andthe Mother Superioraresimilar in kind, their inner
thoughtsinaccessibleevento the narrator,or indeedto anybody,
including themselves. But with their enigmaticwords, eachof
them plays a part asonewho mouldsMargaret's view. For some
unknown reason,the Mother Superiorimbuesthe novice with the
themeof "the maidenall forlorn who milked the cow with the
crumpledhom," alluding to SisterLome and her "imputed
spouse"(S 117). In response,like a good student,Margaret
keeps"an eye openfor a curatewith largeround eyes" (S 117),

182

which look back like a cow at a looker if the Mother Superior's
words canbe taken literally. Her words imply that the gazeof
the Other,whom SisterLome thinks sheuses,will instead
reboundon her authoritarianism.

The conventgoesthrough anotherobjectification by an
authorial Other when lovable SisterRoseis murderedshortly after
the television camerapenetratesthe convent. The murdererwith
a pair of largehandsis never found. The mysteriouscaseis
closedwith the Mother Superior's incredible confessionof the
murder. At this point, inspectorsstepin the place of the Other
beyondthe camera. They watch "the whole film with predatory
attention" (S 120),seekingsomeclue to the murder case. In
doing so, eventhough theseinspectorsnever believe the old
woman's confession,they cometo accepther sinister imageto the
extentthat "Even the toughestof the detectiveinspectorsfelt a
slight shiver" at her allusive words or deliberateemphases-
thoughthey might not havenoticed any of this without their
expectationsbeing arousedby her "confession." The inspectors
setan eyeon their prey andtry to make a causalchain to appease
their own fear of the unknown Other,unawareof the fact that, as
an institution, they arethemselvesthe Other. In the reality of the
humanworld, theirs is the eye of the futile investigation.

Onestrangething is that the interrogationsof the television
crew,the othermale intruders,arenevermentioned. Like Sister
Lome, the inspectorstake no notice of the intruding observer
behind the camerawhile they closely interrogateall the nuns and
frequentmale visitors, including SisterLome's husband.

183

Margaretmay well considerthe Mother Superior's enigmatic
lessonon the hollow eye of the Other: the common fact aboutthe
male objectifying, sexualisinggazeon a woman. Shewrites to
her father aboutthis murder: "I can't help feeling it all hasto do
with that television programme. Oneof the crew left a letter on
my pillow askingfor a date. Of coursethat provesnothing.
Justhis cheek" (S 121). None of this proves anything,but it
implies a more possible,a more plausiblescenarioof the young
nun murderedby a man, oneof the cameracrew: somebanal
aspectsof reality canbe overlookedby focusing on mereimages.

'Mere seemsto be anotherlesson,which Margaretmight
not understandor misunderstand. Shemight be impressedby the
Mother Superior,who takesover the murder caseby her
incredible confession- which could be called her mad discourse-
asa model plotter. However, shecould not seeanotherpatternin
it: behind the young woman falling in the role of victim andthe
old woman taking the role of criminal, theremight be a man
getting awaywith a murder- helpedby the otherhollow eyeof
the investigators. This scenariois to be reflected-and refracted
through a false idea about destiny,the objectifying processof
image-making,andthe gazeof the Other- in Margaret's plotting.

Under the Disguise
Returning from her strangehiding place,Margaretkeeps
practicing her sugaredphilosophy of lesautres ("we haveto
centreour thoughts... entirely on to otherpeople" (S 35), she
preaches),which is supposedto be a maskto cover up her evil

184

plotting, "the evil eye." Ironically, her reality is to emergefrom
this disguise,which shemakesup, somewhatclumsily painting
over the imagesof her conceivedby the others.

From the beginning, William is the only onewho never
doubtsMargaret's sweetnature. When the coupletour the
artworks in Veniceon honeymoon,"She was so carriedawayby
the famousAssumptionin the Frari that it was on the tip of
William's tongueto beg her not to levitate" (S 33). To his
disapproval,"she liked art to have an exaltedmessage"(S 33), and
if shegetsa messageat all from the greatRenaissancepainting,
shemust readit asher "assumption" of power on her own
"assumption." He maybeseesa "Titian-haired beauty" (S 30)
emanatingfrom her consciencein Margaret with her trademark
red hair, which is such a striking red that nobody fails to notice
andwonder if it is natural. But, shedeten-ninesto get rid of her
bad conscience,startsplotting, andhasassumeda maskof her
sweetphilosophy of les autres.

Margaret's father,Dan, noticesthat "Margaret was now
cultivating an exterior sweetnesswhich was really not her own.
Why? What was shecoveringup?" (S 143). For Hurley, at the
first meetingwith her, what strikeshim is alsoher oddnessand
artificiality in appearance:

Margarethad filled the sitting-room with autumn
leavesfrom the florist. Shewaswearing a longish green
velvet dresswith flapping sleeves. Hurley was wondering
what shehad to poseaboutin that pre-Raphaeliteway.
(S33)

185

With regardto the figure of Margaret in her pose,thereis an
interestingobservationaboutPre-Raphaelitism,which Slavoj
2i2ek offers in his MelastasesofEnjoyment: Six Essayson
Womenand Causality(1994). ý62ekpays attentionto how the
revival of the Pre-Raphaelites- which declinedas"the epitomeof
dampVictorian pseudo-Romantickitsch" (Zi2ek, 1994,113) when
Impressionismloomed in France- roughly coincidedwith the
emergenceof postmodernism. He links the Pre-Raphaelites'
breakupof perspective-realismto the notion of postmodernist
"hyperrealism." He illustrateshow the Pre-Raphaelites'
intended"natural" way of painting resultsin an artificial flatness,
which canbe seenas"a sign of clumsiness":

it is asif the very "reality" thesepaintings depict is not a
"true" reality but, rather,a reality structuredasin bas-relief.
(Another aspectof this samefeatureis the "dollish,"
mechanicallycomposite,artificial quality that clings to the
depictedindividuals: they somehowlack the abyssaldepth
of personalitythat we usually associatewith the notion of
"subject.") (2i2ek, 1994,114)

This bracketedformula aboutindividuals in Pre-Raphaelite
paintings approximatesMargaret's pose. In Hurley's view, her
appearanceis, in short, "pseudo-Romantickitsch." Is this image
"artificial" or "natural"? Cantherebe a "subjecC'undersucha
"disguise"?

At her last visit to Uncle Magnusbefore the party,Margaret
says,"Comparedwith the evil eye,what I have in my mind isjust
healthy criminality" (S 159). Sheinsistsin her wish to be a

186

"subject" by making a plot of her own, and demandshelp from
the elusiveuncle.

"All thosesuspicionshave fallen on me," said
Margaret. "Why shouldn't I really do it? I'm tired of
being madeto feel guilty for no reason. I would like to
feel guilty for a real caseof guilt."

"Generally speaking", saidMagnus, "guilty people
do not feel guilty. They feel exalted,triumphant, amused
at themselves".

"That's fme. I'd like that."
"Like it or not," Magnus said, "destiny might do it for
you."' (S 160)
This conversationrevealsthat Margaret is trappedin a double
misrecognition. Shehasinternalisedthe evil eye idea imposed
on her, insomuchassheidentifies her self-imagewith her public
image,"a passivecarrier of disaster". In her attemptto change
"passive" into "active," sheis only to assumethe sameimageshe
challenges- the imageof the Other: shebecomes,more andmore,
the Otherto herself Besides,while craving for a mundane
criminal plot, shehas deludedherself to believe in her exalted
power of evil - though it hasbeenso far uncontrollable. She
doesnot realisethat "the evil eye," the ideawith which Magnus
hasinoculatedher, is somethingexternal,that is, her destiny.
What shesuffers is not a split betweenher self andher image,but
destiny. Sincedestiny doesthejob for her, asan actualresult,
thereis neither her plot of healthy criminality nor her "natural"
self to hide underher "disguise" - the artificiality of her Pre-

187

Raphaeliteposerepresentsthe reality of subjectabsorbedin the
image of the Other.

At the end,at the news of Hilda's death,Margaret is seen
being not herseo,' shrieking, "It shouldn't havebeentill Sunday!"
(S 191)- driven by destiny,driven mad. Like her "victim, "
Margaret too is lost betweendestiny andher imageshesees
through the eye of the Other. Whereassheconfusesher destiny
with her plotting and assumesthat shecanbe "an authorin
control" with her uncle's aid, it is the uncle, more than anybody
else,who objectifies her and cunningly controls her
misrecognition.for his own mad narrative. "0 ... was it a man
or a vile woman,/My true love that mis-shapitthee?" (S141),
recitesMagnus,greetingMargaretwith theseversesfrom the
ballad. He enjoysshowing off his obsessionwith her, or "a sex
fixation" (S 141),asher sisterspitefully puts it. Meanwhile, her
father- so enamouredof her that "his eyesfollowed her asfar as
they could" - seeshis own passionfor his favourite daughter-
which "he mutely controlled" (S 75) - madevisible in his mad
brother: "Dan was frightened; of himself, of Margaret,andof
Magnus" (S 140). It is, aboveall, the obsessivemale gazethat
"mis-shapit" her, fixed on her and fixing her in the imageof the
Other,an object of desireandof fear,whereasthe female
membersof the family - more self-centredfor better or worse-
also alienateher. Her mother andtwo elder sisters,who are
totally different from her, canneverhide their fear of her. In fact,
in her mother's thought,Dan andMagnusbecomeequally "they";
madnessis the weaknessof "thoseMurchies" (S 80), to which

188

Margaret belongs. "Margaret is a Murchie" (S 107): she is a
Father's daughter.73

What is asambivalentas- yet, may be evenstrongerthan-
the daughter'saffinity with Magnus is the fraternal alliance
betweenthe father andMagnus. To Dan, who often consults
Magnus aboutMargaret,the mad guru declares:"Out of my
misfortune, out of my affliction I prognosticateand foreshadow.
My divine affliction is your only guide," adding anotherverse
from the ballad, "None but my foe to be my guide" (S 81).
Apparently, Magnus is the Other. At the sametime, he assumes
the authorial figure of father,replacing, or rather,doubling Dan -
andperhaps,playing the divine Fatherin his gameof re-inscribing
Margaret's destinywith his cryptic words - asif it were his plot."

" "The Fathers'Daughters"(1959) is Spark's short story, which focuseson Dora
(interestingly,the samenameas Freud's famouspatient's), a middle-ageddaughter
andher father,who usedto be a famouswriter. This pair, "shrewd in their love for
eachother" (AS 2 10),is contrastedwith another,a young daughterandher father,
who is a famouswriter. Dora, obsessedby her father andpainfully (especially
becauseof a lack of money) devotedto him, hasintemalised her father's discourse
insomuchasshecannotlive without it. By a skillful useof free indirect style,her
thoughtsoften take a form of questionto him in her mind: "Do you remember,
Father,how in the old dayswe disliked the thick carpets- at least,you disliked them,
andwhat you dislike, I dislike, isn't it so, Father?" (AS 201). Actual conversations
supposedlyrecurredin the pastand in the presentbetweenthe daughterand the
father are alsooften insertedwithout inverted commasor only with dashes,asif to
blur, cover up, or preventherself from showingher own feelings. Sparkgives a
"happy ending" to the story: Dora finds a man to marry, who would solve financial
problemsandwho is "a born disciple"(AS210) necessaryfor her father. Thisstory
hasa sequel"Open to the Public" (1989), which is about Dora andher husband,
both hauntedby the father evenafter his death.
74Oddly andsymbolically, what Magnus"prognosticates"and "foreshadows"out of
his "divine affliction" arerelatedto the deathof the mother,which consequently
servesto the patriarchaltradition. He seemsasif he foresawthat Margaret's
mother-in-law is to be murdered,leaving all her fortune to her only son. In the
past,whenhe was with Dan and Margaret,he suggestedthat his mother should
changethe will to leaveall her fortune - which is hers, not inherited from her late
husband- to Dan, the eldestand the only saneson,insteadof equally amongthe
two sonsand threedaughters. Mrs Murchie Sr did so. In Margaret's account,she

189

As a mad man,Magnus is legitimately on the other side and sohe
canresolvehis own contradiction.' In contrast,denyinghimself
the excessembodiedby Magnus,the father remainssane,but
impotent to stopthis excessto be duplicatedby Margaret;the
daughterfalls into the ambiguousdoublerole of victim and
criminal, possessedby the Other/Father. "Undoubtedly," says
Magnus, "In families, oneneverknows" (S 81) - whether"the
other" is a ffiend or a foe.

In Muriel Spark's Symposium,the dichotomy of one andthe Other
is broken into tautological imagesof the Other; the party,the
seeminglystablecommunity, is brokenup by the sheddingof
blood. Among all kind of communities,it is the family, the
traditional coreunit of society,that is disturbedmost. The
sheddingof blood might be a very aggressiveform of the
message:an individual self should comebefore family, or any
kind of group; an individual self shouldbe soughtin relation to
oneself,not to the Other.

askedher to call the family lawyer andhappily changedher will -just before sheis
murdered,by a madwoman,who escapedfrom the mental hospital Magnuslives in.
Though Dan is horrified by the affair, suspectingthe involvement of both Magnus
and Margaret;his mother's fortune helps him "keep the house" (S 72), keephis
family.
MThe important contrastbetweenMagnus,the mad man, and the Mother Superior,
the (probably) madwoman, shouldbe noted. While he will not get caughtfor
anything, shechoosesto get caught(probably) for nothing.

190

CHAPTER V

SOMETHING EXCESSIVE

"It's unfinished business".
- Reality and Dreams

In Muriel Spark's twentieth novel, Reality and Dreams (1996),
severalplots developarounda film director, Tom Richards,and
the story is mainly setin the film industry,a modem agentof
producing and selling dreams- or virtual realities. Its simple
title might leadus to expecta direct concernto dealwith the
postmodemquestionaboutreality. What is reality? - is what we
think of asreality only a dream?- this is one of the big questions
postmodernfiction haseverraisedwithout waiting for Lyotard's
statementin 1979. Sparkhasalwaysbeenone of the postmodern
artists,who are- accordingto Lyotard - necessarily"in the
position of a philosopher", seekingnew presentationsof reality,
engagingin the "businessnot to supply reality but to invent
allusionsto the conceivablewhich cannotbe presented"(Lyotard
81).

In Reality and Dreams,however,insteadof raising a direct
questionaboutreality, it seemsasif Sparkis theorisingher own
art of fiction, which indeedexplores"the tract of no-man's land
betweendreamsandreality, reality and dreams"(RD 160),
somewhatasTom the film director philosophiseshis art of film-
making with a degreeof professionalaccuracy. This is a very

191

puzzling novel, which provides few clues. At first glance,it may
be hard to get to the point, the relevanceof art to the otherbig
issuein this novel: redundancy- maybebecauseSparkis
reluctant to "plug away at an ideatoo much, to hammerhome
things, it's betterto let them diff-use"(1-11,1998,223), asshe
remarksin the interview included in TheorizingMuriel Spark.
Yet, in the sameinterview, shemakesit clear that shewantedto
write aboutthis problem of redundancywhich peoplein this
contemporaryworld actually havebecause"the issueis to have a
whole new philosophy of life where usefulnessis questioned"(I-
111: 1998,223).

Somethingexcessive- whetherpositive or negative,from
extravaganceto redundancy,certainly including art itself - canbe
one focal point from which to considerReality and Dreams,and it
is a point on which Tom the film director fixes his gazewithin the
novel. Sparkgives the shapeof a woman to an unfathomable
excesselement. However, asthis woman is Tom's missing
daughter,sheis an invisible focal point to Tom, a characterin the
novel, or "the tract of no-man's land betweenreality and dreams",
in otherwords. While Spark's art operatesreality in this "no-
man's land," Tom's art only castsshadowsof his dreamsthere.
For all his philosophising,he doesnot yet know what his "arC' has
produced,or rather,re-produced. He hasto facethoseshadows
of his dreamswhen his daughtergoeson to claim over the control
of the "no-man's land."

192

Reality and Dreams
A Sleeper in the World of Vision

"He often wonderedif we were all charactersin one of God's
dreams"(RD 7). Thus Reality and Dreamsbegins;it is a
recurrentphraseandthe essentialthought that hauntsTom
Richards:

Tom often wonderedif we were all charactersin one of
God's dreams. To an unbelieverthis would havemeant
the castingof an insubstantialitywithin an already
insubstantialcontext. Tom was a believer. He meantthe
very opposite. Our dreams,yes, areinsubstantial;the
dreamsof God,no. They arereal, frighteningly real.
'Mey bulge with flesh, they drip with blood. My own
dreams,saidTom to himself, areshadows,my arguments-
all shadows. (RD 63-64)
While he entertainssuch an idea,he enjoysplaying God's part in
directing his film. He delights in sitting up on a greatcrane,
looking down his staff moving below at his order. In reality - in
one of God's dreams- he is to pay a heavy price for this self-
complacentgame. He hashad a bad fall from the craneand
endedup in hospital, though he narrowly escapeddeath. The
first chapterdragsus into Tom's confusingand confused"hospital
dreams". In this sequenceneither he nor we canbe surewhich
fragmentarysceneis dreamor reality. After this first chapter,we
follow events,asTom is convalescing,this is a move, it might
seem,towards"reality" away from "dreams." However,the
apparentlymore solid reality soonshifts into "a tract of no-man's

193

land betweenreality and dreams". The principal "plot" consists
of everypossiblespeculativestory suggestedby charactersabout
Tom's daughter,Marigold, who mysteriously disappears.
Among all the media gossipingand futile investigations,most of
possiblestoriesaboutMarigold aretold in Tom's monologues,
thoughts,memoriesand dreams. This, of course,doesnot mean
that the whole story is meantsimply ashis dream. Here, it is the
writer's subtledeviceto weaveher plots into the compositionof
dreamthat guidesus to the samegrey areabetweenreality and
dreams.

Having too much money is the Richards' problem. It
allows them "too many possibilities, endlessoptions" (RD 120)
for the truth aboutMarigold's disappearancel:et alonesimply
starting a new life, shecould be murdered,kidnapped,or on the
contrary,could afford criminal activities herself- whateverher
motive is. Everything is possible,andso Tom andeveryoneelse
fabricatetheir storiesby deducingthe causeof her disappearance
from its effect on their presentsituations. Connectionsamongall
thosestories,aswell asamongactualeventstaking place,are
hardly revealedthroughoutthe novel. Suchconditions as
destroyedcausalrelations andjuxtaposedalternativesareamong
points Freudtries to make in termsof representationsin dreamsin
his essay,"On Dreams" (1911):

A causalrelation betweentwo thoughtsis either left
unrepresentedor is replacedby a sequenceof two piecesof
dreamof different lengths. Here the representationis
often reversed,the beginning of the dreamstandingfor the

194

consequenceand its conclusionfor the premise. An
immediatetransformation of onething into anotherin a
dreamseemsto representthe relation of causeand effect.

The alternative 'either - or' is never expressedin
dreams,both of the alternativesbeing insertedin the text of
the dreamasthough they were equally valid. I have
alreadymentionedthat an 'either - or' usedin recordinCg)a-
dreamis to be translatedby 'and.' (Freud, 1911,158-59)
Nonetheless,in contrastwith the psychoanalyst'spurposehereto
restoredestroyedconnectionsandto bring dreamsto the logic of
the waking world, Spark asan artist,,apparently,doesnot seemto
feel obliged to give any interpretationof her story. None of the
mysteriesaboutthe missing girl is explainedbeyonda few hints
abouther involvement in criminal activities. In her fictional
world, Sparkis at liberty to exposethe unreality of the real world,
which could be evenmore unrealthan dreams- the world built in
abundantimages.
With regardto how the writer presentsproblemsconcerning
the world that hingeson visual images,Tom's professionasa film
director takeson a greatersignificance. All Tom's film is about
is "Pictures inside frames" (RD 75). In the Freudiantheory of
dreams,key componentssuchascondensationand,especially,
displacementhaveto do with representationsin dreams,in other
words, "modification into a pictorial form" (Freud, 1911,162).
An analogybetweenthe processof Tom's film-making andthe
formation of dreamheightensits effect aroundthe field of vision.
From the outset,in the surrealopening,Tom's "hospital dreams"

195

consistin a sequenceof fragmentedscenes. There,visual

imagesareindexesof his thoughts,andthe director's casting-

gameis at work. Nursescomeand go as one imageor another,

which is for someunknown film part he would castthem in.

Also in his druggedmind, he yet discernsthat his perceptionof

time is confused,andthinks, "So doesour trade direct our

perceptionsand our dreams Cut into the sceneof the
....

morning with the sceneof the evening" (RD 8). As a film

director,he can"cut," "'save"and "scrap" (RD 75) this imageor

that image,ashe likes. However,the processof his image-

making becomesparticularly problematic asit comesto face an

empty space. He is far from the position of God, of omniscience.

When Tom startsto seekfor imagesof his missing daughter,like

an immobile sleeper,he is fixed to the point from which he stares

only into this absence.

"Like a patient etherised upon a table"
An attemptto figure out the absentgirl, Marigold, is not
dissimilar to the processof Tom's film-making, the most essential
part of which, he thinks, is to castpeopleaccordingto his images:
"It was a surrealisticprocess,this castingand creatively feeling at
the sametime. At the initial stagesfacesand shapesaffectedthe
form of his moviesmuch more than the screenplayitself' (RD 74-
75). Marigold emergesonly as a patchwork of images,which
other peoplereconstructstill more on the imagesof her which
they have alreadyconceivedandthe roles they have casther in.
It is this group of imagesthat forins and dominatesa story about

196

Marigold. This processalsoechoesin Tom's reciting of his
favourite lines from T.S. Eliot's poem":

Let usgo then,you and 1,
Whenthe eveningis spreadout against thesky
Like a patient etherisedupona table; ...
A taxi driver Tom befriendsoffers a fitting interpretationfor these
lines: "here's thesepeoplegoing out for a walk in the eveningand
they're going to discussa third person,someonenot there. And
thesetwo are going to talk aboutthat third person,the patient"
(RD 67 [my italics]). Around the missing girl - nobodyhasever
botheredto think abouther beforeher suddendisappearance-
everybodybeginsto tell his or her version of a story,what kind of
personMarigold could be. Not only people in the film business
or the massmedia- whosejob is to tell a story,to live on images
- eventhe police or a private investigator cannotprovide any
solid information. On the contrary,at a variety of Marigold's
sightingsreportedby witnesses- Honolulu, Amazon or wherever
- "dazzling place-nameshad waylaid the bored investigatorsfrom
visualising Marigold in somefunk-hole nearerhome" (RD 135),
where sheis actually to be found. Despitenumerous
interrogationsor sophisticatedtechnological equipment,every
investigation is doomedto be a wild-goose chase.
We canneverreachthe figure of Marigold beyondTom's
imageof her. As this image is fusedinto Tom's newestfilm and
Marigold is actually castasits protagonist,the novel getseven
deeperinto "the tract of no-man's land betweenreality and

" "The Love Songof J. Alfred Prufrock."

197

dreams". In this no-man's land, Marigold entrapsTom in her
power game. It is his methodsof film-making that she
appropriatesfor her manipulationsnot only of imagesbut alsoof
real peopleto the extentthat shecrossesthe border between
practicing "art" and controlling life. Her own absenceis at stake
in her ingeniousmanipulations. While sheis invisible herself,
sheis certainly watching others,presumablykeepingsome
superiorknowledge or secretsto herself, and maybeforeseeing
the successof her unknown "business". However, after all, what
canbe found in her absence,this empty space- anythingbut
images?

Among artist figures in Spark's fiction, Tom receivesextremely
charitabletreatmentfrom his creator. There area string of male
characterswho areunsuccessfulartists.,from untalentedwriters or
poetsin her novels such asMementoMori, Loitering with Intent
and TheOnly Problem till "a pisseur de copie" inA Far Oyfrom
Kensington. In contrast,Tom is a very successfuldirector with
fame, a certaincharm,an attractivelover, anotherbeautiful
daughter,and a wealthy and generouswife. Thereare only a few
of his sort. No doubt Luigi Leopardi in ThePublic Image and,
though he is a dubiouscase,Lister in Not to Disturb areboth
successfuldirectors,andvice versa- successfuldirectorsaremen
in Spark's novels.77 Sincethesedirectorsarepresentedas
artists asbusinessmenand exploiters,this choiceof men for that

"I excludeAlexandra in TheAbbessofCrewe here,though sheis qualified more
than enoughto be regardedasa successfuldirector. Somecrucial qualities of this
larger-than-life figure cannotbe discussedin this line of investigation.

198

part is very much intentional. If not the main theme,existing
asymmetricalpatternsbetweenmen andwomen in their power
relations arealways crucial factors,to which Sparkattends".
Moreover, thesefactors enrich conceptsabouther diversity of
artist figures.

In Tom's case,after all, Sparkgives little credit to him as an
artist. Although he boasts,"My film is not replaceable.... No
work of art canbe replaced. A work of art is like living people"
(RD 23), his work remainsa shadowof shadows,a reproduction
of images. Sparkemphasisesthe film asan art form which has
flourished and developedhand in handwith economicand
technologicaldevelopmentsduring the last century. Becauseof
its obviousbut offstagealliancewith material affluence,Tom's art
form, film, presentspostmodernphenomenain the contextof late
capitalism,which has culminatedin the overgrown image-making
business- and in endemicredundancy. Sparkfinds this artistic
medium a rich groundto let the notion of excessexpandin
various directions.

Already in 1967,in his TheSocietyofthe Spectacle,Guy
Debord had identified spectacleas"the very heart of society's real
unreality. In all its specific manifestations- newsor propaganda,
advertisingor the actual consumptionof entertainment- the

" The openingof ThePrinte ofMiss Jean Brodie gives an impressiveexample:
"The boys, asthey talked to the girls from Marcia Blaine School,stoodon the far
side of their bicycles holding the handlebars,which establisheda protective fenceof
bicycle betweenthe sexes,and the impressionthat at any momentthe boys were
likely to be away" (PMJB 11). '17hegirls, famouslyknown as"the Brodie set," are
led by the proud, statelyMiss Brodie to leavethe boys shortly after this opening.
The potential subversivepower, which the heroineembodiesall through the novel,
showsa subtlesign through "a protective fencebetweenthe sexes".

199