POSTMODERNISM MURIEL SPARK

spectacleepitomizesthe prevailing model of social life" (Debord
13). Tom, like Spark's other film directors,is aswell awareof
and articulateaboutthis phenomenonasDebord, but, unlike
Debord,,is indeedwithout "deliberate intention of doing harm to
spectacularsociety" (Debord 10). Inhis real life, Tomis a
glamorousimageprovoking envy,a celebrity figure publicising
consumerculture, and a uselessextravagancegeneratingthe waste
necessaryto maintain the capitalist economy." Also in his
professionallife, his art form and its inevitable big budgetleave
him unableto escapeeconomicprinciples and the systemof
producing illusions.

To makehis film. meansthat Tom must own the film, in
other words, must havemoney to invest in it. Luckily enough,
his wealthy wife always provideshim with enoughmoney to
claim for, at least,a part ownershipof his film so that he canhave
his say andhis way. For his part, continuousstrugglesand
compromisesbetweenhim andproducers,betweenhis aesthetics
and commercialsuccess,areno more thanritual pretencein this
film business. Practically,he canignore any claim of othersin
the long run. With regardto Tom's positive andhabitual reliance
on a marketableimage of a box-office actresslike Rose
Woodstock,,from the beginning, nobody opposeshim. It is
Tom's own passionfor Rosethat throws him into another

" This emphasisesTom's being in a position of power that is parallel to his
dictatorshipin film-making. JohnBergerpertinently arguesthe relation between
effectsof publicity andthe illusory systemof power in his MaysqfSeeing: "the
enviedarelike bureaucrats;the more impersonalthey are,the greaterthe illusion
of their power. The power of the glamorousresidesin their supposedhappiness:
the power of the bureaucratin his supposedauthority" (Berger 133).

200

negotiation, anotherpower game. Roseis no victim of the
exploiting male director. The glamorousstar actressneedsnot
sleepwith the director to get a part, but wants to sleepwith him,
for shethinks of it as"a way of directing the film herself' (RD
143). As a result of his affair with her,which, he declares,is at
once"part of [his] profession" (RD 29) and "not professional"
(RD 80), he often willingly gives in to her demands- for more
"close-ups" - evenagainsthis aesthetics.

As Tom choosesactorsfor their appearancesandthis
castingis essentialto him, the primary aim of his art is, to
materialisehis idea,to make a visual image out of a flesh and
blood person. The plot of his film, TheHamburger Girl, hasan
almost allegorical part in this novel. He had a glimpse of a girl
making hamburgersat a campingsite in France,andlater this
imageof a nonenticalgirl becamehis obsession. He keeps
thinking over what his hamburgergirl - called Jeannein the film
- would do if an unknown benefactorwere to give her an
unimaginablesum of money. At one of their cruising nights,
Tom asksfor an opinion of Dave, the taxi driver:

"Do you think," saidTom to Dave, "that shewould
know what to do with that sort of money? Would sheever
leam?"

"It dependson the girl," Dave said. "It seemsto me
you've forgotten that the girl hasa character,a personality,
alreadyfunctioning beforeyou sawher dishing out
hamburgers. Shewas alreadya person. It dependson
her what shewould do."

201

"The chann of this girl is that shehasno history,"
Tom said.

"Then sheisn't real."

"NO, she's not real. Not yet."'80

Like a patient etherisedupon a table;. .. (RD 77-78)
Clearly, Tom usesthe word "real" differently from Dave. Tom
the director hasno intention to give "a character"or "a
personality" to his hamburgergirl, who embodiesandis a mere
idea. If shegot any personality or any idea herself, shecould not
be the idea of nonentity,that is, nobody,any longer. All he needs
is the living embodimenton screen,the visualised imageof the
original imageof his hamburgergirl. Sheshouldbecome"real"
in the discourseof the field of vision andremain insubstantialas
ever in the contextof the real world. To fill in this insubstantial
image,he has castan insignificant andhopelesslyundistinguished
actress,whosenameis alsoJeanne. As sheis herself a nobody,
the little actressseemsperfect, tailor-madefor the role,
embodying,aswell asprojecting, a plausible visual imageof the
hamburgergirl. Meanwhile, Roseis to play the part of the
benefactor'sgirlfriend, the part written into the film solely
becauseof her own star quality as a box-office draw.

"Plausibility ... is what you aim for asa basisfor a film.
Achieve that basicsomething,andyou canthen do what you like"

" The mediocrity of Tom's ideacould be tracedback-to "the themeof Pyginalion"
and imply a commonrelationshipbetweenan exploiting male director and an
objectified actress. This is not dissimilar to Luigi's casein ThePubliclinage: A
rising actress,Annabel Christopher's casualcommenton his script, "Well, isn't that
the themeof Pygnialion?" offends Luigi, who "refuted the imputation that any idea
of his wasnot absolutelyoriginal" (PI 34).

202

(RD 57), accordingto Tom. Nonetheless,it seems,he doesnot
really know what he then wants to do on that plausiblebasis.
Now that he hashad a plausible imagefor his hamburgergirl, he
needsplausibleacting (which is not the director's problem,
anyway)- and a plausible story. Is it a story which hasa
reasonablecausalrelation and so seemsreal that he looks for?
About a work of art, thereis a different opinion, which contradicts
Tom's. Sparkhasa formidable scenariowriter, Abbess
Alexandra in TheAbbessof Crewe,andlets her saythat scenarios
"need not be plausible, only hypnotic, like all good are' (AC3 02).
The two women seemto sharethe view that a work of art is
irrelevant to plausibility or a causallink: Sparkremarks,"one
thing doesn'tnecessarilylead to anotherinevitable thing, although
it doesleadto somethingelsein actualfact'' (I- 11,1998,216).
Then what is Spark's trick in Reality and Dreams? Tom'sfilmis
originated in "his wish-dreamto settlea lump sum on that young,
poor hamburgerwoman," andhe longsto see"what would be the
consequenceto her" (RD 75). He transformsthis dreaminto the
film,, in which he substituteshimself for the super-richbenefactor
who, unlike Tom, hasno problem in producing "a lump sunf' and
hasa girlfriend playedby Tom's real-life lover, Rose. In the film,
he tries to fulfill his wish and alsoprovide a plausible
consequenceto makesenseof his dream. In this respect,his
practice of art looks more like a psychiatrist's practiceof
interpreting dreams.

The novel doesnot let us know what story Tom eventually
choosesfor his film. Instead,asan explicit irony, his film turns

203

into anotherstory that reflects "society's real unreality," in which
an individual is drowned andeffacedin an image. As an actual
fact - evenmore ironical for Tom - somethingelsebeyondhis
imagination happensto the other hamburgergirl, Jeannethe little
actress. Jeannecan get into this job to play the minor part,
which is actually the essentialelementof the film, assheis a
nobody. Totally failing to understandthis paradox,resentful
Jeannegradually deludesherself that sheis a star,while becoming
a copy of the image of the imageof the original hamburgergirl.
Shecomesto put forward an absolutelyunreasonableclaim
againstTom: "I am the onewho's going to inherit, to be a
millionairess" (RD I 10). At this point, Tom's wife Claire, who
hasusually beenin chargeof handling the poor actressandso far
sympathetic,reasonablythinks that the girl is mad. In reality
Jeanneremainsa nothing, "a throw-away item" (RD 78): sheis

redundant.
For Tom Richards,everything, and indeedeverybody,is at

his disposaland canbe disposable. In the fihn business,
reffication of individual people- the labour force ascommodity -
is altogethervisible. In practicing his art form, both his

materialsandproductionsareevaluatedon a strictly utilitarian
economicbasis. This is, for example,evident ashe budgetshow
to achievehis "wish-dream," calculating on which scalemoney

should matter:
Supposehe shouldnow sayto his wife: "Claire, I

needX millions to give awayto a girl asan experiment",
what would shedo? It would be like her answerto his

204

requestfor the S6vresdinner platesin order to breakthem
in a mood of exasperation. Shehad sentto his room a pile
of platesfrom the supermarket,absolutelyuselessfor his
purpose. It would be like that. Insteadof X millions for
his experimentClaire would, perhaps,suggesta few, some
X hundreds;interesting,but anotherstory altogether,a mere
kindly act, not at all to the point. What he neededwas all
Claire's millions, every last million. (RD 77)
If this kind of extremity is what Tom needsfor his art, it only
amountsto extravagance- hugewasteto fulfill a small illusion.
However,betweenextravaganceandutility standsTom's rich
wife, in whom he canidentify a somewhatcontradictory antithesis
to the over-inflated value system.

Claire, Tom's secondwife, coming from a flourishing family in
New York, is a really wealthy woman. Her looks andlife style
materialisethe perfect propriety of her status,that of the moneyed
bourgeoisie. Sheholds the idea of classdifferences,but sheis no
hypocrite. Sheacceptsher public imageas"essentially a money
persoW'(RD 65) without resentment,and "It's my money,not
yours" (RD 53) is what shefrequently saysto her family. But
sheis absolutelygenerouswith her money. This doesnot mean
that sheis carelesswith her money,either. All of her charitable
transactionsarerecordedin "two old-fashionedleather-bound
ledgers" (RD 65), then computerized,and dealtwith by her
efficient secretary. Furthermore,togetherwith her charity
activity, when sheis askedfor her money,sheis "very clever at

205

discriminating betweenfraudulentattemptsat rip-off andgenuine
appeals"(RD 65). Sheis willing to offer financial help to a
redundantfamily memberwhateverhe would usethe money for,
andwould supportTom, whetherhe is a celebrity director or a
temporarily redundantone.

The most typical exampleof Claire's quality is that she
financesan investigation of her missing daughterto be undertaken
by Ivan, a handsomedetective,andthe extremelybeautiful Cora,
Tom's daughterby his first marriage. As the couple's lengthy
investigation becomesan excusefor themto prolong a romantic
affair, Tom calls it "a uselessextravagance", to which Claire
answers,"Let them enjoy themselvesa little longer" andhe knew
"she meantby this to put in a plea for Tom not to be a spoil-sport"
(RD 128). Claire's characterseemsto presentthe bestpossible
option, a utopia suchasMarx might dreamof.81 Sheusesmoney
- becauseshecanafford to - asa tool to make life very livable,
better andmore pleasant,andwith this asher basicrule,
transformsuselessextravaganceinto somethinguseful. With her
substantialmeans,h, er fundamentallycompassionatenatureand
solidity secureTom in his unstableandinconsistentworld
betweenreality and dreams.

Along with Claire, Tom hasanotherconfidante- and informer,
with all his indulgencein monologue,which is often addressedto

" In this novel, therearetwo Jeannesand alsotwo Claires. Claire the wife almost
loyally keepsa Hungariancook called Claire despiteTom's complaint abouther
horrible cooking andhis claim that "Once a communistalways a communist" (RD
29). Thesetwo coincidencesalso canbe signsfor Spark's increasingconcernwith
the themeof the double,which appearsin Aiding andAbetting (2000).

206

nobody and falls into solipsism. Dave, the taxi driver, is Tom's
"expensivebut true friend" (RD 75). The relationship between
the two men is fairly complex. As it is a true friendship, this
personalaspectof their relationship fills in a gapbetweentheir
social statusandburies latent problemsdeepin that gap.
Certainly, their night-cruising in Dave's taxi is a fair exchangeto
both of them. Dave profits by Tom's extravagance,privileged
by the friendship with the interesting,famousdirector. It is also
a good bargainfor Tom. To gain a friend is more than what he
paysfor, namely,Dave's utility asa taxi driver. They evenenjoy
eachother's wife's affection, insomuchasDave's wife likes Tom
"tremendously" (RD 136) andDave canoccasionallyspendan
eveningwith Claire at home (RD 147)though thereis no further
implication to thoseamiableaffections. At the point when Dave
is shot,most likely asa surrogatefor Tom, andthenpartly shares
Tom's experienceof "dream[ing] of the hospital" with "the lovely
nurses"(RD 119),it seemsasif Dave is taking on the role of
Tom's double. However, this is not the case. This attackon
Dave indicatessomethingelse.

First of all, what makesTom take it for grantedthat he is
safewith Dave? Like Claire, Dave is a kind of touchstoneof the
real world, and at onceawakensTom to the real world and
protectshim from grim realities. Dave impressesTom with his
bravebut pitiftil sight in the hospital. Although, like Claire, he is
so faithful to Tom, he could havebeendangerous. "In his
wisdom" (RD 133),the taxi driver provides a penetratinginsight
into the world andindividuals, but alsogives Tom good

207

infon-nationabout criminal activities or police investigations. He
knows somuch aboutthe other world, that of the lower class,
miles away from Tom's own world. Moreover, he hasacquired
enoughknowledgeaboutTom that he could usefor blackmail, if
he liked. But Dave hasnever donethat. Is it only becauseof
their friendship, of Tom's fair treatmentof the taxi driver ashis
equal? It doesnot seemso simple. Society doesnot allow
them to be really equal,andtheremight be a mechanismof
containmentby bourgeoisideology at work.

Thereis a suggestionon Tom's part of hypocrisy: Tom can
be, "so rich ashe was, so democratic" (RD 75) that he doesnot
mind sitting besideDave in his taxi. The police investigation
after the attackon Dave showsno suchhypocrisy, interrogating
the victim:

Had he any enemies,debts? No, he hadn't. They

searchedhis house from top to bottom, much to his wife's
indignation: "We're the victim and they treat us like the
criminal. " The police found no drugs, no evidence of
handling drugs, -they found nothing. (RD118)

If Tom were the victim - ashe shouldhave been,perhaps- it
would be quite a different story. Tom andDave, they are
different. Dave, "the driver, of second-generationWestIndian
origin" (RD 64) is the Other to the society which is dominatedby
the classTom belongsto. Consciouslyor unconsciously,for his
new film, Tom conceivesan idea,which reflects a colonial
discourse. He startsto think abouta story of a Romancenturion
andhis servant,"a Celt, a native of Britain" (RD 125)in Roman-

208

occupiedBritain. Although a little twist makesthe centurion
modeledon Tom himself an occupier,insteadof an immigrant,
andhis servanta native, this idea of the Celt who is grantedthe
intimacy with his masteris very much like Dave. A hierarchical
relationshipbetweenthe Romanandhis Celt, and sobetweenTom
andDave, is lucidly presentthough the Roman centurionis - if
not gay,asTom deniesDave's suspicion:"Is he gay?" - "devoted
to his Celt" (RD 125).

The attackon Dave ripples a smoothsurfaceof his
relationshipwith Tom. It turns Dave, literally and symbolically,
into a figure of victim, the colonised,the tamedOther. Their
friendship is not destroyed,but thereis no more night-cruising.
Here Marigold entersasthe onewho triggers this separation. At
least,the novel tells us the facts that it was Kevin Woodstock,
Rose'shusband,who shotDave,,andthat Marigold hired him asa
hitman. Kevin tries to believe that he wantedto threatenhis
wife's lover, Tom, but this is an unconvincing reasonbecauseher
lover at the time of the attackwas anotherman,,andRoseand
Kevin havebeenalreadyproceedingwith their divorce. He
simply wantedmoney and did this job. In this respect,Dave has
an uncannily good guess:"someoneshotme it seemsasa warning
to you, andthey haven't got the man. Kevin Woodstockseems
to me to fit the part. I'm going on my way, Tom" (RD 146). So
Dave quits the night-cruising when Tom resumeshis affair with
Rose,from which he has checkedhimself during the scandalof
his daughter'sdisappearance.

As for Marigold, wise Dave hasno clear answer. He

209

thinks that sheis likely to blackmail Tom though he saysnothing
about in which way. It is suggestivethat he saysto Tom, "she
left of her own free-will to make a break from you. Your name
alone is overpowering" (RD 95). Another guessof his that she
puts words aroundto accuseher father is quite possibly right, as
he sagaciouslyobserves,"she could setthe tone in a numberof
ways, Tom. Word of mouth is the strongestmethodI know,
alwayshasbeen" (RD 114). Above all, one thing Dave is very
sureof is that Marigold doesnot like Tom: "Dave statedthis so
much asa matter of fact that Tom wonderedif he had some
certainsourceof knowledge" (RD 114). Wenow haveto
carefully examineMarigold, this inscrutablegirl, togetherwith
her relationshipwith Tom and alsothe strangetriangle including
Dave.

Marigold Missing
Marigold is a gloomy elementdisturbing various relationships
aroundher. Sheis a redundantdaughterandwife. After many
failures to makeher an appropriatefamily member,Tom and
Claire have alreadypassedthrough a stageof blaming themselves
for this frightfully mannereddaughter. While the coupleis more
united "like birds in a storm" (RD 85) mainly becausethey have
this appalling child to discuss,the loving girl Cora satisfiesthe
role of daughternot only to Tom, but alsoto her stepmotherClaire.
The world outsidemakesit apparentthat Marigold is an odd extra
of the radiant family, asmany magazineslater report Marigold's
disappearancewith her hideousphoto andthoseof the gorgeous

210

family memberssideby side. Marigold has lived almostalone,
living a secretivelife, during her marriageto James,a travel writer
who hasbeenso often away. It takesmany weeksfor anybody
to notice that Marigold is missing.

The final statementthat Marigold is a "redundantwife"

comes from her mother Claire, who gets tired of her "bitching"
(RD 87) about Tom's affair with Rose. To this, the daughter
unreasonably responds, "A mother shouldn't talk to a daughter
like that" (RD 87). With such a horrible girl, even for
compassionate Claire, motherhood does not work. Curiously,
Marigold, who is supposed to be "too satisfied with herself for
envy, jealousy or the like" (RD 87) in Tom's view, turns out to be
really embittered by the fact of being made redundant. She
believes.,it seems,that she is made redundant in spite of her
valuable knowledge, information, and rightness. She preaches
that people, respectively her parents, should "examine their utility,
their service ability, their accountability, their duties and
commitments" (RD 37) no matter whether she herself believes in
doing that. As Tom cynically thinks, "Marigold knows
everything"(RD 52), particularly about the infidelities of her
family members. She has no doubt about being right to convey
her information to others, but, instead of appreciating it, they take
it as unpleasant - or unnecessary,of no use. She is an unlikely
person to sympathise with men who are made redundant because
of their "poor performance" or whatsoever, and it is a cunning
move getting herself ajob to write about redundancy, with her
false identification with jobless men. Then, in the middle of her

211

researchaboutredundancy,Marigold suddenlydisappears.

A Copy or the Other Inside?
To both Tom and Claire, Marigold is "a murky proposition" (RD
147). Marigold's existencemakesmany negativepropositions
concerningmyths of family bond, of classconsciousnessa, nd
opensup issuesof causalityin this novel. To her parents'
continuouswonderment,neither their blood nor their classcan
explain her character. Supportingher well financially asusual,
Claire cannotunderstandwhy Marigold "can be so common" and
wonders,"Where doessheget that vulgarity? From which of us,
from what side, doesthe street-comertouch come9"(RD 90).
Indeed,this is a vulgar assumptionon Claire's side, snobbishness
of a moneyedperson. Privileged becauseof her class,she
blindly believesin such a system,and is unableto questionit.
However, in her way, sheis innocent. Sheis perplexedby the
fact that having a lot of money doesnot work in a betterway.
Marigold is the incomprehensibleand incommunicableOther
inside the family.

Nevertheless,Marigold showssomeresemblanceto Tom,
maybemore thanhe is aware. The narrator suggeststhat
"PerhapsMarigold's only resemblanceto Tom was that she
indulged in monologues"without failing to add,"But was this
inherited or only copied?" (RD 34). Then thereis Tom's
obsession. His dreamof giving someX millions to his
hamburgergirl hasits consequences. In hospital,under the
influence of drugsand injections, he dreamsof murdering Claire

212

to inherit her money andrealisethis "wish-dream." While he
doesnot concedethat he canpossibly have sucha dreamin a
soberstate,he can almostinstinctively discern,asif known to him
already,this dangerousexcessin the Other,who is his daughter.
The latent excessivenessin him comesto the surfaceandto some
realisationthroughMarigold in the mode of violence: from moral
blackmail to criminal assault. Shemanoeuvrespotential
violence prevailing amongnegotiationsand strugglesboth in
family life andin social life. Marigold, in many ways, copies
Tom and embodiesthe Otherwithin him, the dimensionwhich can
conceivethe dreamof murdering Claire, in his half-awake,half-
asleepdruggedmind - her frightening excessmirrors, echoes,and
replicateshis own.

Knowing well that materialising the dreamin real life is
completely different from doing so in his film, Tom is even
horrified by the excessof his own dream. Although either
frustration or indignation sometimesleadshim to "act like a
femalehedgehogor a porcupinethat hasbeensexually violated"
(RD 25-26), all the extravaganceallowed to him in his profession,
including an unnecessarydirector's crane,largely sustainsTom's
equilibrium. His private illusion of being God through
producing illusions for the public satisfiesand containshim.
This is not the casefor Marigold, who is more ambitiousand far
more unscrupulousthan he is. Whereashe needsart asa
substitute,to reproduceimagesof his dreams,shepracticesthis
"art" of his in life, and it is the authorwho representstheir
excessesin a disturbing interplay betweentheir "arts" andtheir

213

lives, in the "no-man's land," a spacecreatedby art.

Claire saysof Marigold, "there's a feeling of frustration, of
unfi-nishedbusiness. I think of her face,the tragic mask.
Why?" (RD 87-88). Tom eventually chooses"Unfinished
Business"for the title of his film, TheHamburger Girl. He can
at last finish it andmove on to a new film idea. Around the
complicatedrelationship betweenthe father andthe daughter,the
unreal andunstableworld of the image-makingtakesover the real
world. Tom's dreamandMarigold's desire- the desireof the
Other within him - cometo meetin Tom's vision, his film.
Marigold becomeshis obsession,his image. In this strange
connectionbetweenhis film andher figure, thereremains
Marigold steppinginto "unf-mishedbusiness"to makea dream

real.

Although Marigold's illusion is to betray her ambivalent
andultimate aspirationfor Tom in the position of God,what is
hard to detectis herjealousy for Tom in an erotic or sexual
context.82 If Freud,the acceptedauthority on sexuality,aswell

82It is this presentationof an erotic scenarioassubsidiarythat disappointssome
critics. In "Muriel Spark's Uselessness"(2002), JeremyIdle paysattentionto
Spark's "interest in extravagance"(Idle 143)andtakesup topics suchasevil, money,
death,and sex,in relation to Bataille's conceptof die diabolical natureof art.
Although he seemsto find a key to opensomequestionsasto her ideasof art and of
excess,he endsup discussingBataille's art ratherthan Spark's, missingthe author's
point and how the notion of excesstakesthe shapeof desireor anything elsein her
fiction. Idle remarks,"Spark is not alwaysgood on desire,andwhere sheis bestat
it, the desireis strongestfor a dressrather than a person" (Idle 152),referring to one
episodein her early novel, The Girls ofSlenderMeans (1963). The novel is about
girls living in poverty, in the postwarEngland,in dormitories called the May of
Teck Club. In its garden,it is saidthat a bomb lies dormant. One day,a bomb
explosion really occursand it startsa fire; girls aretrappedin a bathroomonly with
a small skylight. Among them, Selina,a beautiful and slendergirl easily escapes
from the skylight. However, shetakesa risk to go back to die building on fire,
wherebigger girls arestill stuck in fear andpanic- Selinagoesback to rescuea

214

ason dreams,madean attemptat interpreting the ambiguous
father-daughterrelationship in this novel, his possiblescenarioof
causeand effect might merely add anotherspeculativestory of the
missing girl. Sparkthe artist hasher plots to explorethe notion
of excessin a much broaderperspective;sheshowsall the
dynamicsof excess,which generatesthe interaction between
extravaganceandredundancy,andthe power gameinflamed by
somethingexcessivein Tom andMarigold.

The Art of Hypocrisy
Marigold at onepoint sendsher parentsa home video cassette.
It recordsa simulatedjob-interview, in which sheplays the part of
a nasty,prospectiveemployer andshelooks so suitably hideous.
Tom and Claire laugh and laugh. But it is asif the amateur
production were a self-parodyof her image designedto mock
them. To Tom's greatamazement,later in her professionaljobs
sheprovesto havereal, marvellousskill in acting, which for him
is "fundamentally the art of hypocrisy" (RD 52). Her hypocrisy
is madevery explicit by the discrepancybetweenher self-
righteous"sermonising" (RD 34) andher contradictoryvicious
practices. Shetakesto any availablemeansfor her pseudo-
revolutionary actsdirectedagainsther father. Shehappily
capitaliseson proletarian denunciationof bourgeoisideology or
on feminist accusationof exploitative men, while cushionedby
her amplemeansreceivedwithout thanking her rich mother.

fantastic Schiaparellidress,which belongsto oneof the girls. The Schiaparelli
dressis an interestingintroduction to Spark's vision of excess,a hilarious display of
the writer's excess,her various ways of materialising somethingexcessive.

215

Marigold turns everything into a moral questionandthen
usesthe moral high ground. This allows her a weaponto justify
herself andto condemnothers. Tom's observationthat sheis
"very puritanical" (RD 105)is both right and wrong: her rigid
utilitarian norm doesnot permit othersany unnecessarypleasure
or anything amoral- suchasa work of art - to others,while at the
sametime sheseemsto assumethat sheherself cantranscendany
moral question,andthus sheherself is immoral. In her research
into redundancy,sheconstructsherself as dedicatedto helping
redundantpeople. But, in practice,shestirs up only frustration
in theseredundantpeople,feelings of failure and of the guilt of
being useless. Her norm is nothing but the samevalue systemof
capitalist economicsthat countsan individual to be a useful part
of the labour force, a mere"throw-away item." What sheusesis
not this systembut the way it works. It canbe saidthat shemust
havelearnt aboutthis from Tom's lifestyle andhis profession.
Sheknows well how to manipulatepeopleby appearance. By
her skill in acting, her hypocrisy, sheconcealsherself andher self-

assignedauthority underwhat sheseems.
In the courseof the story,many characterscarry on and

break off affairs. The rich can afford thoseaffairs asoneof their
usual,pleasurablepastimesasthey can afford any otherthing. In
contrast,men maderedundantgo through the problem of lost
virility, andtheir wives fmd someromantic flirtation - whether
compensationor exploitation - with a man like Tom, to whom
Claire tellingly comparesinsurancesalesmen:"I haveheard...
that insurancecompaniesmove their door-to-door salesmeninto

216

areaswhereredundantworkers live.,hoping to profit by their
lump-sum severancepay" (RD 63). Unsurprisingly, Marigold
never fails to censureher parentsfor "womanising andmanising7
(RD 37) and at the sametime sheherself is ready to have sexwith
male intervieweesto documenther casestudy of the redundant.
Marigold's interestsin men and in sex areduly reported,though
what sheactually hasto do with the matter of sex is fairly obscure.
There is only a slight hint asto this. Sheconcernsherself with
the connectionbetweenthe two male prowesses:of their working
performanceand sexualactivity. Shealsopersistentlyprobesa
femaleintervieweeabouta connectionbetweenredundancyand
women's refusal to sleepwith men in the office. For onething,
theseconnectionswell fit the commonideasof men asexploiters
andof sex asa thing of exchangevalue. For another,personally,
Marigold may try to prove herself able and "useful" not only asa
kind of social-welfareworker but also for sexualactivity.
However, shemight not think the possibility that thosemen slept
with her,not for her person,but becausesheis the daughterof the
famousTom Richard.,which is true of oneman's case- or shejust
might not care. So far assheseemsuseful, shewould not mind
that sheis not useful.

For Tom, thereis a puzzling fact that Marigold hasnot slept
with one of her intervieweesin particular, Kevin Woodstock. As
shehires him to shootDave, unlike Tom, shemight well be
sensibleenoughandmore professionalnot to allow the man to
havehis own way. Shecopies- Tom andhis methods- but
outwits the original.

217

An Invisible Viewer

The inspectorinvestigatingDave's caserejectsTom's proposalto
think "Cui bono asCicero said": "We're a long way from Cicero's
time. He probably didn't give much thought aboutthe
motivelesscrime" (RD 120). So far asMarigold is concerned,
looking for a motive is futile. Nobody can know her because,in
a sense,thereis no Marigold. Tom's conviction that "if shewas
still alive shehad lost her memory" (RD 98), aswell ashis
anotherconviction that "a personconsistsof memories" (RD
95)," is to be validated in a different way andmore thanhe thinks.
Tom no longer recognisesthe youngerMarigold of old photosin
the presentMarigold, who might leavethe sphereof reality and
becomea girl with no history like his hamburgergirl. Marigold
disappearsandstirs up her presencein people's mind by her very
absence.b,ut that presenceconsistssolely of images.

Darian Leader's Stealing theMona Lisa: WhatArt Stops Us

from Seeing(2002) providesus with many perceptiveinsights into
the act of seeingin relation to a work of art - andempty space.
Why so many peoplewent to seethe empty spacewhen the Mona
Lisa was stolenin 1911is Leader's startingpoint to discussissues
concerningthe visual field by using Lacanianpsychoanalysis.
The story abouta living person'sdisappearancemakesa different

83The themeof memoriesin relation to a way to materialisethe essenceof the
individual, with referencesto Proust,asis seenin A Far Cryfrom Kensington,is
echoedhere. In anotherpart in this novel, Tom's monologueaboutdetailsof
memoriesof his friends in past leadshim to a conversationwith Dave. The taxi
driver's opinion that insignificant detailstell "something aboutthe person" pleases
Tom, who excitedly responds,"You're absolutelyright. But I wouldn't have
expectedyou to feel that way. In fact I think-they wantedto createa memory of
themselves- Earl Grey teaand white kid glov&'(RD 117-18).

218

casefrom the theft of an artwork. However,both storiesare
aboutthe createdemptiness. Arguing through Lacan's concept
of sublimation,,Leader focuseson the idea of an empty space
createdby the failure of the linguistic mechanism,of the
mechanismof representation,andhe emphasises"the distinction
betweenan object and a placeor zone" (Leader60). The point is
that, in an empty spaceonceoccupiedby an object, the object
fmds itself asa new, elevatedfigure, which becomesabsoluteand
inaccessible,"emptied of all substance"(Leader63). In Reality
andDreams, asif following sucha process,Marigold transforms
herself into an inaccessiblefigure, though this undesirablegirl's
empty spaceis more relatedto its threateningpower thanto the
viewer's desire.

The point that "a dynamic of looks" involves threeagents-
"the viewer, the object andthe third party who is viewing the
viewer" (Leader 14)- is important. What causesus uneasiness
or discomfort, or eventhreatensus, is this gazeof the third party.
Unlike the Mona Lisa or any portrait, in Reality and Dreains,the
gazelooking back at the viewer is that of a living person,
Marigold, full of malicious intentions. That Marigold has
disguisedherself asajobless "man" andexperiencedthe plight of
the unemployedto write on the issueduring her missing period is
only the surfacestory. Shehasbeenobservingthe massmedia
picking up on her disappearancea, ndwatching her family get a
bad press,assailedby their old guilt that they might have
neglectedher. And in this look beyondemptiness,thereis "the
strange,enigmatic desireof the Other" (Leader33). Marigold

219

becomesa completestranger,the Other to anybodymore than
ever. Then, what is the desireof this Other? Stoppingbeing a
real personandbecomingan image?

An Image on an Empty Space
Marigold hasdisguisedherself asajobless man, andlived among
jobless men, and shereturns,putting on a new mask, a hero of the
working class;assuminga new imageof "hermaphrodite" (RD
140). Shemanipulatesthe massmedia, aswell aspublicising
her book, so successfullythat sheenters"the national
consciousness"(RD 141). The scandalof her disappearancehas
not only terrorisedTom to begin changinghis lifestyle, but also
causedhim to becomeobsessedwith her image. It may not be
enoughfor her to "impersonate"the hamburgergirl of his original
obsession,asTom and Claire imagine (RD 98): replacingthis
image of his dream,of which sheis so resentfuLnow, Marigold is
his obsession.

Tom beginsto cravefor Marigold's particular "look," and
namesit "nemesisin drag" and "the Last Judgmenf'(RD 106),
which arenot so far from what shewould like to be. Finally, he
gives her the image,the male role - which sheis to play opposite
his lover, Rose,asthe femaleleading role - in his new film.
This doesnot necessarilyimply her lesbiantendencyany more
than Tom's intimacy with Dave necessarilysuggestsa gay
relationship. Instead,thereis a fusion, or confusion,of
Marigold's identification with Tom. On Tom's part, in terms of
narcissism,theremight be "the fascinationwith the mirror image"

220

(Leader28) reflected in the empty space. "The man in drag
theory" (Leader30), a male artist's desireto put his own imageon
a female figure of his work - like a suspectedda Vinci imageon
the Mona Lisa - might be also applicable,though with a twist.
What takesplacein making Tom's new film is a numberof
complicateddisplacements.

As thoughhe would like to residein the security of the past
and its historical memoriesasfacts,Tom thinks of a story setin
Roman-occupiedBritain. Following Dave's advice,"Stick to
facf '(RD 145),Tom plansto let his Celt, who is gifted with
secondsight, predict only actualhistorical moments,not fictive
ones. In his original plan, Marigold's imageis put in another
character,the centurion'sjealous andfierce daughter. However,
eventually he abandonsthis daughterfigure and assignsMarigold
to play the part of his Celt, "a young man sentmadby complete
knowledge of the future, andyet with little control over his own
life, belonging ashe did to his centurion" (RD 132). Some
mysteriouschemistrycreatesthis ironical shift. If the figure of
Tom's Celt could be tracedback to the hermaphroditeprophet or
the tragic king's daughtergifted with secondsight, the figure of
himself remainsin the position of power here. In his dream,
Tom puts his daughterin her place like his taxi driver who serves
him, andevenputs her to the end. This makesa very fitting
exampleof Leader's argumentthat an artist createsan image,a
mask,to ward off " the evil eye": "The evil eyehasto be tamed"
(Leader 39).

For her part, Marigold takesover Dave's imagein the film,

221

parallel to her attempt to get rid of him in life. If to get Tom
through Dave and replace Tom with herself were her wild dream,
she might as well like to replace Dave - who once literally plays
Tom's substitute. But then, the taxi driver who, with some
curious insight, always has the right clues to her doings is also her
own reversed image in their shared secondary status as the Other
in relation to Tom: the lamed Other. Regardless of the fact that
she is tamed, at least, in Tom's dream, that her unknown self is
lost in the seaof illusions, she would be still pleased with her new
empowered androgynous image. Even though the Celt is to be
killed, putting on her "part-smile as she pronounced the word
Csuicide"' (RD 143), this tragic figure that "belongs to the world
of legend" (RD 133) may be suitable for her own illusion of

aggrandisement.

In real life, "I can't castMarigold in the role of victim" (RD
94) saysTom: the role of wrecker is therefor her. Wishing to
ceaseto be "Father's daughter"passionatelyandviolently, she
extractshis methods,appropriateshis art form of image-making-
andevenoutwits the original to someextent. In the end,
Marigold asthe untameableOther abetscrazyJeanneto finish
Tom off, to wreck his craneand destroyhim with it, but this last
job resultsin Jeanne'sdeath,not Tom's. Marigold is to leave
with "unfmished business",,with "the tragic masle'still on her
face. Obsessedby her father's obsession,sheremainshis
negativecopy,endsup ashis illusion and in his illusion. After
all, sheis no work of art, andhasno substanceto occupy any
place, either:

222

It is an emptyplace into which we project certainimages,
andthe doubtsaboutan object's authenticity serveto
accentuatethis differencebetweenan object and a place.
An artwork - or the imageof a person- may go into this
place,but it cannotbecomeidentical with it. (Leader87)
The doubt aboutMarigold's equilibrium shownby peoplewho
haveseenher indicatesa traceof madness,which leadsto
destructionor self-destruction. In this novel's ending,vaguefear
of madness,of unrealreality, echoes:

Claire poured drinks all round. Both Tom and Cora
felt her strengthand couragesustainingthem, herein the
tract of no-man's land betweendreamsandreality, reality
and dreams. (RD 160)

In Reality and Dreams,asin TheDriver's Seatand in Symposium,
the irony of the humancondition - representedby a woman trying
to be "an authorin control," but instead,caughtup in her own plot
- is subtly accompaniedby the irony of fate. However, asSpark
theorisesthe complicatedand contradictorynotion of excesswith
particular focus,Reality and Dreamsmay evenmore sharply
display her concernwith contemporaryissuesarising from the
postmoderncondition, from which not only individuals but also
art suffers. As to the big themeof excess,what matters,above
all, is art asexcess. The failed aggressionssuchasLise's
illegitimate grandnarrative,Margaret's abortedhealthy criminal
plot andMarigold's unfmishedbusinesscanbe called pseudo-
revolutions- or practicesof pseudo-art. Before further

223

exploring Spark's philosophy of life conveyedthrough her art of
fiction, it would be interestingto take a brief look at "an anecdote
of destiny" suitablefor artists,who aim to changeways of seeing
the world, reality and life, turning destinyinto a calling by a really
revolutionary power of art asexcess.

An Anecdote of Destiny
By a curious coincidence,Isak Dinesen(a.k.a. Karen Blixen)
sharessomelife experienceswith Muriel Spark: living in Africa, a
failed marriage,a late debutasa professionalwriter. "Babette's
Feast," Dinesen's short story containedin, 4necdolesofDestiny
(1958), showsa certainphilosophical affinity betweenher writing
and Spark's- with someimportant andrelevantmotifs here:artist
figures,possibilities of life, and somethingexcessive. In Babette
a destituteFrenchwoman and a greatchef - unlike more familiar
artist figures in her storiessuchasa spectacularperformer or a
wise storyteller- Dinesenorchestratesvital elementsand evokesa
sonorousimageof an artist through a simple third-person
narrative,which is unusualfor her style, andwith almost Spark-
like economy.

"Babette's Feasf'is a story abouta miracle that happenedin
a small Norwegian village, where a group of peoplelived,
following a certainDeanwho foundedtheir Lutheran sect. After
the Dean's death,his two daughters,Martine andPhilippa remain
asliving relics to barely unite his disciples. Both having been
unearthlybeautiful, unattainableby anything or anybodyfrom the
secularworld, the sistersoncebroke the heartsof men from the

224

greatworld - Lorens Loewenhielm a young officer andAchille
Papin a greatsinger- and silently let theselovers go. Besides
Papin, Philippa let go of her possiblefuture to be a greatsinger,
too. However,in 1871,Babetteis sentto the two sistersby
Papin, or by a strangefate.

Babette,who lost everythingbut her art in supportingthe
Paris Commune,is herself a revolution againstevery established
setof values. In the sameway that nothing preventedher from
fighting againstthe very peoplewho admiredher asthe greatest
cook or denouncingtheserich peopleas"evil and cruel" (Dinesen
67), the peoplein the small village cannever "converC'this
Frenchwomanto be one of them. If the villagers' belief that this
"'real" world is only an illusion andthe only "reality" is the New
Jerusalemwere oncemore profound, their philosophy of life itself
hasbeenshackledby moral and economicprinciples. Their
puritanical way of living is not only becauseof their actual
poverty but alsotheir blinded, rule-boundmind. It is a
mechanicalfear to make any mistakethat leadsthem to shutup
the greatworld outside,to throw away all pleasureoutside
necessityasa sin. Without giving a moment's thoughtto the
"real" world or a "real" pleasure,they bottle themselvesup in the
safety of their small world andso they bottle up their true feelings.
To them, Babetteis somethingmore than a mere imageof witch
or a heathen;an ever foreign - symbolically sheneverreally
learnsNorwegian - threatening,unpredictableelement. This
element,only Philippa, who would havebeena greatsinger,
exactly discernsasthe quality of an artist at the end.

225

Although Babettemagically saveshousekeepingand
becomessuch a useful, necessaryservantfor the sisters,sheis not
oneto live for utility andnecessity. Nor is sheoneto seekfor
thejuste-milieu betweenextravaganceandhonourablepoverty.
Wehearher cry, "only one long cry from the heartof the artist:
Give me leaveto do my utmost!" (Dinesen68). It is twelve
yearsafterher arrival when shefinally hasthis chanceto do her
utmost, to cook the dinner celebratingthe late Dean's hundredth
anniversary,into which sheputs all ten thousandsfrancs- the
"grand prix" shemiraculously won in a lottery - and all her art.
Any way of living ruled by economicsis asirrelevant to her art as
the moral causeshefought for, andevencontemptiblein spite of
her sympathyfor the poor. In this sense,the two mistresses' ,as
they wonder, "for the very first time ... becomethe 'good
people...(Dinesen44) to her when they grant her the chanceto
cook the real Frenchdinner. Shecarriesout a revolution, not as
a "pdtroleuse", but asan artist.

"It is Fate" (Dinesen37), saysBabette,to haveto suffer her
lossesof her pastdays. However,to give her a chanceto useher
art, evenFateworks in favour of her- and sheseemsto be sureof
this, asif to sayit is her fate to be an artist: her calling.
Whateverher religious belief is, sheknows that "divine grace" is
there for her andthat it is shewho materialisesthis grace.
Babette's lavish feast,substantialasit is, is calculatedas
unimaginableextravagancein terms of money andof food to live,
but what shereally createsis an effect on life. The artist who is
off stageat the dinner, alsomakesher guestsforget aboutthe

226

dinner itself to the extentthat they realise"when man hasnot only

forgottenbut hasfirmly renouncedall ideasof food anddrink that

he eatsand drinks in the right spirit" (Dinesen58). Similarly, a

noble guestin the pastsaid,"this woman is now turning a

dinner into a love affair of the noble and romantic categoryin
...

which oneno longer distinguishesbetweenbodily andspiritual

appetiteor satiety!" (Dinesen58). This is Babette'striumphant

momentwhen shebecomesat oncea true servantand conqueror:

peopleshemakeshappywith her art belong to her. Under her

work of art, like divine grace,everybodyis the same. She

simply surpassesany barrier suchasa classsystemor a religious

sect. Her own valuesinvalidate them. Sharingthe dinner,

feeling its miraculous effect, and drunk on their bestspirit and the

bestwine together,the villagers andthe man visiting againfrom

the greatworld - now GeneralLoewenhielm,- areunited and
understandeachother though the languagesthey usearedifferent.

In the end,shakingoff any otherpossibleword to define her,

Babettelooms over the two sisterssimply asa greatartist.

BesideperplexedMartine, Philippa, whoseheart is now listening

to "forgotten cordsvibrated" (Dinesen67), tremblesin

exhilaration. Babette'sart openspeople's eyesto every

possibility in life and confinns that it always awaitsthem, whether

they would take it or not. The pastis redeemedby the present,

and the presentis redeemedby "the fulfillment of an ever-present

hope" (Dinesen62). Babette's art comesfrom and leadspeople

beyondthe principles of necessityandutility, where onemay find

the deepcore of a philosophy of life in somethingexcessive,

227

without which one can live, but for which one wantsto live.
Despitethe significanceof the given historical dates,the

simple narrativethat has a touch of fairytale gives "Babette's
Feasf' sometimelessquality, which is similar to that of the
etemalisedhour of the feastin the story. And it is in the small,
secludedvillage of Berlevaag,wherethe miracle happensto the
"good people," whereas,to changethe world, Babettein the past
fought with arms,not with her art, againstthe oppressorsin the
greatworld of Paris. Probably,asa tactful storyteller,Dinesen
choosesthe exceptionalsimplicity of the form for this particular
story to focus on its philosophical kernel, for all the little too
utopian ending andthe straightforwardness- asstraightforward as
Babette's declaration:"I am a greatartist."

Muriel Sparksays:
I would hopethat everything I write changessomething,
openswindows in people's minds, something. I do want
to do that, to clarify. (1-11,1998,222)

Spark alwaysdoesthat with her art of fiction, asshedoesin
Reality and Dreamswith her way of questioningusefulnessto
offer anothernew philosophy of life, which shehopesmight
changethe world. Shealso createswomen who sharethe excess
of the artist, who areon stagein the next two chapters.

228

CHAPTER Vl

PRATICING ART IN LIFE

"Life is all the achievementof an effect."
- ThePublic Jmage

Muriel Sparkhasalways declaredherself a poet. Being a poet is
her essentialmode of being, for which andby which shetries to
explain who sheis: ...Who am 1T is always a questionfor poets"
(CV 14), shesays,in her autobiography,Curriculum Vitae(1992).
This is to saythat, for her,the question,"Who am IT' is
inseparablefrom anotherquestion:"What is art to me?" - or
"What is my art?" In this formula, the questionof individual
subjectivity is more specifiedas an artist's quest,which in many
ways leadsto the combination of two of Spark's greatest
concerns:the themeof individual subjectivity andthe themeof
the interplay of art andlife. However, if consideringher whole
view of art in terms of the problematic conceptof subject,the two
inseparablequestions- "Who am IT' and"What is my art?" -
might becomeasrelevantto any individual asto the artist.

Practicing "the Desegregation of Art"
In 1957,startingwith TheComforters,a novel aboutwriting a
novel, Sparkreinventedherself asa novelist who, admittedly,has
neverbelongedto a school, andwhosenovels createa new kind -
"the novels of a poet" (1-3,1970,412), in her words. Through

229

the first experimentof writing a novel, Spark astutelyfound it her
mitier. Her debutnovel, which calls into questionthe boundary
betweenreality and fiction, was alsoa decidedfirst stepin her
own postmodemism. In TheComforters,Sparkat onceexplored
andpracticeda new art form, the novel; sheexaminedand
producedeffectsof this art. To perforin thesedoubleacts,she
chosean artist-heroine,CarolineRose(becominga novelist at the
end), andraisedan important questionaroundher - rather,a
questionabout her character. Like her author,Carolineis
working on a book concernedwith "Form in the Modem Novel"
(C 160),but then shebeginsto hearmysterioustyping sounds
accompaniedby voices, which tell her life story. Trappedin the
author's play betweenreality and fiction, Caroline asksa telling
question:Am Ia character written in someoneelse's fiction?
(What is a "character", then?) The novel, at its end,resolvesthe
questionby hinting that this novel is a book written by its heroine.
Caroline survivesher suffering, her fear of being a "character" of
someoneelse'splot, by turning into an artist, who is going to
write a novel about"Charactersin a novel" (C 288). Caroline
Rose,both inside and outsidethe book, in a symbolic way,
appearsasan inventor andher own invention: a "character"who
invents herself.

Is the ending of TheComfortersa clever but merely
technical solution, and a rather euphoric,privileged escapefor an
artist? The following accountof the heroine's survival may give
an answer. As Caroline leavesthe stageof fictional world, with
her laughter,to becomean author,her former boyfriend - "the

230

charactercalled LaurenceManders" (C 288) - plays the last scene.
He writes a letter to her; it is a letter shewill not know of,
because:

He took it out of his pocket andtore it up into small pieces,
scatteringthem over the Heath where the wind bore them
away... andhe did not then foreseehis later wonder,
with a curiousrejoicing, how the letter had got into the
book. (C 290)

What this endingprovides is a wonder and a greatjoy to Laurence.
It is a feeling of liberation brought by the revelation of "the book"
aboutthe existenceof his letter. "The booW'takesLaurence
outside"the book," which is TheComforters- in which he enters
the last sceneas"the charactercalled Laurence" andhis letter is
actually reproduced- but now, is alsoimplied asincorporatedin
Caroline's book about"Charactersin a novel." This vertiginous
device symbolisesthe liberating effect of art on both Caroline, a
novelist who practicesthe art of fiction, andLaurence,a readerof
her work of art.

Concerningthe effect of art, Spark did not stop at being

satisfiedwith representingthe power of practicing art
symbolically in this heroine's transformationinto an artist: the
whole view of what is art was still at stake. Thanksto the
Chinese-boxstructureof TheComforters,Carolinehas"the boole'
asherjustification for being called an artist (in reality, this debut
novel - "the book" - madeSparka recognisednovelist). Yet,
Caroline is oneof the very few - andalways female" - characters

" In MementoMori, CharmianColston,though sheis not at all Spark's kind of

231

Sparkhasever grantedsuchjustification amongher professional
artist figures: poets,novelists,painters,actorsand film-directors.
Caroline is actually becominga novelist by profession,but, more
importantly, the novel refers to the effect of her practiceof art: her
liberation from being a "character", her changefrom a written
object to a writing subject. Caroline's transformationinto an
artist is markednot only by her work of art, but alsoby this
practice- suggestedlargely by the structureof the novel, though-
to invent herself. Thus, in her first novel, Sparkalready
conceivedthe ideaof charactersinventing themselves,an idea
which waslater to be developedmuch ftirther insomuchasit has
formed onebig themeaboutpractitionersof art in life. She
brought this idea along with her conviction that art must be
effective both in itself and in life, which was to be crystallisedin
"The Desegregationof Art" (1971), her extraordinarymanifesto

as an artist.
In "The Desegregationof Art, " elucidatingwhat is meant

by this title, Sparkpassionatelyurgesus to regardart asan
activity to connectwith real life, communicatewith eachother,
and therebyinfluence the world:

Literature, of all the arts,is the most penetrableinto
the humanlife of the world, for the simple reasonthat
words areour commoncurrency... in orderto

novelist, hasher wisdom asan artist. Shecomparesthe art of fiction with "the
practiceof deception"(AIV 644), knows that this practice is very different in life,
and also survivesher bullying husbandwhen her novels get revived attention.
Most notably,Fleur Talbot in Loitering ulth Intent is a sort of the author'spersona.
Emma Loy in A Par Cryfroin Kensingtonis an awful but fascinatingwoman,
praisedasa brilliant novelist, whosebooks "look after themselves"(FCK 98).

232

communicate;we talk, we write to eachother.
("DA" 33)

Shepromotesart asa way of communication,which is to be
practicedby everybody,in everydaylife. Nonetheless,to make a
distinction betweenthe generalidea inherent in all the arts- any
art using "our commoncurrency" - andthe particular exampleof
literature, sheexplains:

the art of literature is a personalexpressionof ideaswhich
cometo influence the minds of people... Literature
infiltrates and should fertilize our minds. It is not a
specialdepartmentsetasidefor the entertainmentand
delight of the sophisticatedminority. ("DA 34)
It is in this way that the art of literature also shouldbe "penetrable
into the humanlife," into everybody's life. Shethen goeson to
define what is the effective art for "the desegregationof art," that
is, "the liberation of our minds" ("DA" 36). Here comesher
famousdefinition: "Ridicule is the only honorableweaponwe
have left" ("DA" 35) - "the satirical, the harshandwitty, the
ironic and derisive" ("DA" 36), and"elegant" (1-6,1971,74), she
addsin her talk with Philip Toynbeein the sameyear. She

concludes:
To bring abouta mental environmentof honestyand

self-knowledge,a senseof the absurdand a general
looking-lovely to defendourselvesfrom the ridiculous
oppressionsof our time, and aboveall to entertainus in the
process,hasbecomethe specialcalling of artsof letters.
("DA" 36-37)

233

This is a peculiarly aggressive,radical definition of the writing
profession. What shethinks is the purposeof art andthe essence
of her own art is all here in this 1971lecture. Her conviction of
her view of art is asstrongasher conviction of her vocation to be
an artist and it hasneverwavered.

Around this time, more than ever,Sparkhad reasonsto be
particularly awareof the developmentof her own art of fiction.
After her hard-laboured,uncharacteristicallylong novel, The
MandelbaumGate (1965), sheestablishedwhat hasbecomeher
high-style andhigh-economywriting in a successionof novels:
ThePublic Image (1968), TheDriver's Seat(1970), andNot to
Disturb(1971). Thesenovels appearedwith someof the most
disturbing characterswho alsoshow developmentsof their -very
much dark- "arts" they practice in real life. In TheDriver's
Seat,Lise headsfor her own murder in her attemptto make a
masterplot of her death- so doesFrederick Christopherin The
Public Image, carefully preparingfor his suicide plot. Lister the
butler in Not to Disturb pre-scribesin advancethe murderousand
suicidal scenario,which will later happenasthe inevitable
consequencesof his masters'affair. Keeping her discussionon-
going, Sparkhasspeculatedupon possibilities andpotentialities-
for better or worse- in the idea of practicing art in life, which she
encouragedin her way (and asonewho is by no means"under the
illusion that we areall essentiallyaspiring, affectionate,and
loving creatures"("DA" 36)). Consequently,Spark's fictional
world hasbeenpopulatedby charactersplaying parts and/or
transforming, castingandrecastingthemselves- and often others

234

aswell - in their own real-life scenariosby variousmeansandto
various ends.

The diversity of Spark's practitioners of art in life is eachto
posethe questionwhetherthey arefictional inventionsor
inventors,or inventions and inventors. The fundamental
questionhere is whether their arts-and so themselvesastheir
artworks- areinventions or, say,imitations. Intertwined themes,
the interplay of art andlife andthe issueof individual subjectivity,
areboth key elementsin this question,asin TheComforters- the
"character" called Caroline is thrown into the doubt aboutbeing
an "individual" asan agentof free will, and to a degree,invents
herself asher own character. Sparkhasproducedinexhaustible
variations on the-question,playing upon the hazy line between
reality and fiction, moving betweendichotomiescontrastingand
intertwining the notions of art and of the individual -
depth/surface,natural/artificial, authentic/fake,original/copy.

In her novels.,inventing and castingpractitionersof art in
life, Sparkchallengesand disturbstheseproblematic dichotomous
notions, and goesbeyondthe dividing line betweenthem, which
shebreaks,beyondtheir arbitrarinessand ambiguities,which she
exposes. To seehow - andhow far - shecango it is necessary
to look into her fiction sideby sidewith "The Desegregationof
Art. " Concerningthe idea of practicing art in life, her whole
view of art expressedin this lecture andher discussioncarriedon
in her novels seemto reflect and further clarify eachother. Here,
taking Spark's 1971manifestoasthe norm of her aesthetic
principles, I will compareher characterswho practice art in life,

235

analysetheir arts,and therebyexaminethe way thosecharacters,
in return, illuminate the idea of "the desegregationof art." In
doing so, aswell ashighlighting her view of art, I hopeto clarify
what Sparkmay offer aspossibilities for the "individual, " which
might emergefrom her idea of charactersinventing themselves.

As the main protagonistsof my argument,I chooseSpark's
performer heroines,whoseeffectivenessto expressher themes
regardingart andindividual subjectivity seemsoutstandingeven
amongotherpractitionersof art. The heroine of TheAbbessof
Crewe(1974) canwell be nominatedasa key character,for
Alexandra the Abbessis not only a terrifying scenariowriter, but
also a terrific performer- making a spectacleof her life. It is
worthwhile consideringthe figure of Alexandra alongsideMiss
JeanBrodie,,anotherlarger-than-life performer andthe popular
star of Spark's fiction, on the onehand; on the otherhand,
alongsideAnnabel Christopher,a puny,professionalactress,
central figure of ThePublic Image. To begin with, it may be
serviceableto underline the fundamentalidea that lies in Spark's
creationof performer heroines,and alsoto traceback the
transformationof the artist, who inventsherself.

The Transformation of the Author
Putting it mildly, Spark is profoundly scepticalof "profundity,"
the assumptionof "depth" underneathanything that canbe seenas
"surface." It is a perfectly logical attitude for an artist who
recognisesart aswhat is expressedoutwardly - assurface.
Before startingher careerasa novelist, sheclarified her idea of art

236

asthe surfacein her own tenns in "The Religion of an Agnostic:
A SacramentaVl iew of the World in the Writings of Proust"
(1953), which heraldedher materialist and deconstructionist
stance. This is an important essay,aswell asexplaining her
particular idea of art, containing an explanationfor her later
creationof perfort-ners- in terms of her notion of surface.

In this essay,lobbying for Proustin the Church ofEngland
Newspapei-,Sparkrelateshis writings to the Church on the ground
of "a sacramentavl iew of life," which sheexplainsis "a balanced
regard for matter and spirif ' ("RA" 1). Sheconvincingly argues
againstthe common,dualistic - and "moralist" - view, which
makesbinary oppositionsof matter andspirit andregardsthe
latter ashigher in its hierarchy.

It could be abundantlydemonstratedthat present-day
Christian creativewriting, that is most involved in an
attemptto combatmaterialism,reflects a materialismof its
own; this takesthe form of a dualistic attitudetowards
matter and spirit. They areseentoo much in a moral
conflict, where spirit triumphs by virtue of disembodiment.
This is really an amoral conceptionof spirit. ("RA" 1)
In contrast,shesuggests,"by its very lack of moral concern",
Proust's art "escapesthe tendencyto equatematterwith evil"
("RA" 1). (At the sametime, shecheerfully calls Marcel Proust
- the unlikely subject- "agnostic,hedonist,self-centredneurotic,
exotic darling of the aristocraticsalons ... the hypochondriac
turned chronic invalid, the insufferablehot-houseplant'' ("RA" 1).
That her cunning,ironic assaulton the Christian moral attitude

237

was printed in this papershowsher terrifying rhetoric.) As her
justification of canvassingnot only for Proustbut also art in
general,sheemphasisesthe idea of sacrament,"the ideathat the
visible world is an active economyof outward signsembodying
eachan inward grace" ("RA" 1). To establishher aesthetic
principles, sheelaborateson this argument.

Spark's conversationwith Philip Toynbeeof TheObserver
(who playedhis part in her winning TheObserverChristmasstory
competition in 1951asone of the editors, andnow her friend and
fellow writer) addsan interestingpoint to "The Desegregationof
Art. "" When Toynbeedescribeshimself asa "superficial writer"
and asksher if shealsotendsto "shy away from the whole
conceptof profundity" (1-6,1971,74), her responsegoesfurther
than an expectedaffirmation. Shepositively attacksand
overthrowsthe whole concept:

What I'd really like to seeis the desegregationof art - the
liberation of our minds from the comfortablecells of lofty
sentiment(what you call profundity) in which they are
confined and in which they canneverreally feel satisfied.
(1-6,1971,74)

The addedpoint here is that "the comfortable cells of lofty
sentiment", againstwhich shesetsher aestheticprinciples, is
"profundity" by her definition. What shesuggestsis that those
emotionsand sentimentcalled profundity are- if not insincere
anduntrue- an illusion/delusion: a prison of the mind. Exactly
asshedoesin her manifesto,shedismissesa kind of art that
appealsto "profundity," inducessimulatedemotions,createsan

238

illusion asif therewere sometrue naturehidden in depthand asif
thoseemotionsenabledus to be connectedwith it, andblocks "the
liberation of our minds." By her own art, shewishesto liberate
our minds to seewhat is really thereon the surface- andon the
body of her writing. Meanwhile, the appearanceof this artist
also fascinatesthe public. Sparkherself becamequite a

spectacle.
"The Prime of Muriel Sparle'or "Muriel Sparkin Her

Prime" - this couple of phraseshavebeenfrequently attachedto
the authorof ThePrime ofMiss JeanBrodie (1961), while the
nameof her heroine,"Miss JeanBrodie," hasbecomealmosta
popular term. Spark's sixth novel brought her a hugesuccess,
and also,probably, one of the most stimulating experiencesof the
interplay of art and life. In the endlessinterplay, the very
experienceof becomingpublicly known - becominga "Name" -
was likely to provide more goodmaterial for her future novels.
From Miss Brodie to Alexandra, it may be interestingto consider
the evolution of Spark's performerheroinesin relation to the
evolution of the author's own.

Comparedwith her first breakthroughwith her third novel,
MementoMori (1959), the hugecommercialsuccessof Miss Jean
Brodie could be still a very different kind of experiencefor
Spark.85 It was accompaniedby a world-wide recognition,her
evenmore mobile life, andher transformation. Mr Toynbee
referredto this changein their conversation:"You've got a

' Sparkhad a promising start with TheComforters,which drew the attentionof a
literary scene,including Evelyn Waugh. But it wasMementoMori that brought her
the first financial success.

239

marvellous flat, a lot of gorgeousclothes,a vigorous social life;
quite a changefrom Grub Street,andthe dumpy Bohemiangirl I
then knew. Now you're slender,almostsvelte?-a sensational
transformation"- to which, "A transformationI've thoroughly
enjoyed" (1-6,1971,73) washer reply. Itwas Loma Sagewho
detectedSpark's transformationasa consciousoperationon her
image- asan act of inventing herself. This is no wonder.
Sage'spreoccupationwith writers who "invent themselves",
especially,in termsof writing aboutthe lives of women,is evident
in her writings, asis confirmed in the introduction for her
posthumousselectedjournalism, GoodAs Her Word(2003) (one
review rightly gives a caption: "The woman who lit up
literature").

In her interview, "The Prime of Muriel Spark," Sage

remarkswith customarysharpness:
She[Spark] doeshave a slight patinathat peopleseemto
developthrough being often photographedor much
described,but along with it she's soft-spokenand
surprisingly undecided- asthough shehasfurther
metamorphosesin store. (1-8,1976,11)

Certainly, in this interview article Sagewrote aboutSpark's books
- ThePublic Image in relation to her life in Italy, the film
adaptationof TheAbbessof Crewe,and The Takeover,whichjust
cameup. However, interestingly,sheseemedto be evenmore
fascinatedby the artist's "metamorphoses", wondering what this
artist would make of herself next in her life, andmaybe,in her art.
Sheobserved,"about 1965,critics had to dig pretty deepto detect

240

signs of moral earnestness"in Spark,who had become
"irretrievably grand" but kept an air of "determinedlightness" (1-8,
1976,11). Insteadof "digging deep", Sagefocusedon what was
before her eyes,Spark's transformation- material, physical, or
whatevervisible - andwhat sheexpressedby that. In one small
paragraph,Sagesummarisedthe figure of artist Sparkinvented
andperformedin her flesh andblood, linking this performanceto
the artist's aestheticprinciples - andto "moral earnestness"in her
sense:

In short, her style (in every sense)is an offence
againsta whole setof conventionalpieties: againstthe
feeling that the wealth and fameyou get by writing is
somehowdifferent from that of movie starsor politicians;
or that creativepeopleshouldbe fumbling, retiring and
unworldly. (1-8,1976,11)
Sagegot the point: Spark inventsherself, and doesso with style,
for it is an art and sheis an artist.
Back in the 1960s,Sparkmust havebeenamazedand
amused,seeingherself in her newly-acquiredrole of the author of
ThePrime ofMiss Jean Brodie, andMiss Brodie on the stageand
on the screen,carrying aroundher original "stage" of a girls'
school in the 1930sEdinburgh. At the sametime, the creation
shehad unleashedon the world now led her creatorto New York.
There andthen, Sparktalked about"the tensionand energy" (1-2,
19651,10)of the city sheenjoyed(in anotherinterview titled "The
Prime of Muriel Spark7). Nonetheless,later shereflected: "I had
threeyearsin America; but I found I simply couldn't standthe

241

party line -I meanthe way therewas always a right and approved
reactionto every situation" (1-6,1971,73). In 1967,sheleft
New York,,andmoved to Rome. As for this transition from New
York to Rome,her experiencesandkeenobservationsof two
different new worlds, her novels "tell their own story" (1-11,1998,
229), indeed.

In TheHothouseby theEast River (1973), her novel setin
New York, Sparkreproducedits tensionin a world of deadpeople,
who restlesslytry to live up to their lives asthey shouldhavebeen
- which, in any case,aregoing awry, with many problemslurking.
The novel might be her commentaryon the conformity to what
was expected,"a right and approvedreaction to every situation";
the ghosts' play of living might be a supernaturaland surreal
rendition of the "naturalistic" or "realistic" performance- minus
imagination and spectacles'3. 6 The operaticspontaneitySpark
found in Italy could not be more different from the strongsenseof
"the party line" in America. When shechoseRome asthe
setting for ThePublic Image, the novel cameto underline a
mirthful mixture of imaginative sensationalismand "hellafigura"
- the "principle of appearanceappropriateto an occasion"(PI 72
[my italics]). By the time when shewrote this novel, shemight
have given much thought on her expectedpart asa well-known
author- betweenher individual identity andher public image.

" Besides,in spite of its vigorous energy,it was the 1960sNew York with its decay
that shewitnessed. In an interview, Sparkmentioned,"New York wasbeginning to
decay;it was getting dangerous,dirty," and shealsocomparedthe city with Rome in
relation to their passionfor music: "music-lovers in New York tend to be
musicologists,they haven't got this spontaneousg, reat, almostnalve love of music
[of peoplein Rome] ... a response,a real response"(1-4,1970).

242

Before going to Italy, Sparkmadeanotherjourney to
Jerusalem,to the Eichmanntrial for TheObserver;precedingThe
Public Image, shewrote TheMandelbaumGate. As The
MandelbaumGatetook her two yearsto write, the contemplative,
half-Jewishheroine of the book too makesa long questfor "who
sheis" into Jerusalem("Barbara Vaughan'sIdentity" is the title
for the secondchapter). The novel did not turn out to be a story
about threegenerationsof women asSparkhadplanned,and she
was exhausted:"I felt I had donemy Passageto India. I felt I'd
got out of myself what I wantedto say,but I certainly didn't want

to go in for more sociological books" (1-11,1998,215). Tbis
was a correct decision for her writing style. In contrast with her

previouslong labour, ThePublic Imagejust sprangfrom a dream,
accordingto the author.8' In this compactnovel, Sparkis very
much in her elemientin dealingwith the problem of identity.
Annabel Christopher,a minor actressis an unlikely heroine,
whosestupidity and shallownessshinethrough her cloudy eyes,
which magically transform into thoseof "English Lady Tiger"
oncesheis on the screen. Following her unexpectedly
successfulcareer,her main concemis with the role of this "Lady
Tiger" image in her life, ratherthan in a film. Shekeeps
polishing her public image,doing anything for it to survive, but at
the end,it is shewho is to survive this image. Sparkelegantly
and entertaininglytheorised"the public image" through the
progressof the actressheroinein her book, while shewas learning

" Sparkstates:"I hadbeenin Rome,and thenI was back in New York, and I was
going to move to Rome-I dreamtthe whole thing in New York, andwhen I arrived
in Rome I wrote the book. It was the easiestbook I ever wrote" (I- 10,1985,453).

243

a-1b1outthe image-makingbusinessthrough the transformationin
her own life.

By 1974,Muriel Sparkin her prime was readyto create
Alexandra the Abbess,a perfonner asspectacularasMss Jean
Brodie, asprofessionalasAnnabel, andwith the greatsavvy and
style - of her creator.

Performers and Open Secrets
Am Ia character written in somebodyelse'splot? - this question
posedby Spark's first heroinehascontinuedto be important in
her fiction. Variouscontemporarytheoriestoo havebeen
engagedin promoting doubt aboutan individual asan agentof
free will, the problem of individual subjectivity. The point that
any individual born into society is inevitably constructedasa
subjectby being subjectto social norms, to the dominant
discoursesof society,has often beenmadeandargued. Within
this argument,in searchof an agentof free will, anotherproblem
hasemergedbetweenthe dichotomy of a private, personalor
individual self and a cultural construction. Hencethe questions
such asraisedby Judith Butler in GenderTrouble(1990) in terms
of "performativity," and by Sparkin terms of art. Shouldthere
necessarilybe a "real" individual under a "mask" of socialrole?
Can one"have character"or only "be a character"inscribedin a
social format? Spark's performer figures havepresentedsuch
questionswell beforeJudith Butler advancedher arguments
aroundthe keyword: "performativity."

As the title of her book suggests,Butler focuseson the

244

culturally constructedcategoryof genderfrom a feminist
perspective- therefore,the questionis: what is "woman"? - and
brings the issueinto identity politics. Butler carefully analyses
how discoursesaboutgenderand sex operate,alongsidethe most
influential andrelevant discoursesof psychoanalysis- calling
psychoanalysisitself into question- and leadsthe issuesto
cultural constructionssignified andpracticedon the surfaceof
body. Shedeftly deconstructsthe binary frames- suchasthe
real in depthand effectson the surface- to make a casefor her
argumentthat "there neednot be a 'doer behind the deed,"' but
"the 'doer' is variably constructedin and through the deed"
(Butler, 1990,142). Looking for a way of subversionof the
establishedcategoriesthrough andwithin them, in her conclusion,
sheproposes"parodic practicesin which the original, the
authenticand thereal arethemselvesconstitutedaseffects"
(Butler, 1990,146) asa strategy- intentional andperformative.

Butler's theory of "performativity" is suggestiveand
notable,but it cannotescapeits limitations. It seemsto be her
particular brand of feminist stancethat trapsher argument. For
instance,becauseof the significanceof her theory andbecauseof
its focus on how to signify "woman," JoanCopJecin ReadMy
Desire (1994) criticises Butler's "illegitimately derived" (CopJec,
1994,204) conclusion:"woman itself is a term in process,a
becoming,a constructingthat cannotrightfully be saidto originate
or to end" (Butler, 1990,33). CopJecaccusesher of discussing
the identity of a sexedsubject- who alreadyexists- in tenns of
the unfigurability of sex,the failure of the systemof signification,

245

by replacing the actual"being" of women with "the changing
conceptsof women" (CopJec,1994,204). CopJecraises"a
philosophical objection" to this mixing up "the level of the
concept"with "the level of being" (CopJec,1994,205), which, as
a result, deniesany stableexistenceof the identity of women.

As for Butler's "parodic pracices", apartfrom examples
ratherrestrictedto gay andlesbiancultures,an actualfigure of
individual - or "woman" - producedthrough this practiceseems
to remain unfigurable, invisible. In contrast,to challengethe
fundamentalcategoriesof identity, Sparktakesa versatileposition
from which shequestionsvariousmyths constructedupon facts
and conditions of an individual being - such asgender,class,or
ethnicity. Her argumenton identity includesthe fact of sexual
difference,but it is not exclusively for "sexed" beings. Indeed,
her fiction too dealswith feminist discussions,commentingon
social realities of inequality betweenmen andwomen or satirising
her charactersmuddledup about"conceptsof women."
However, otherwise,her generalstancetowardsbeing a woman is
regardingthat asa plain fact, a plain difference from men,visible
on the body. In her novels, the artist demonstratesthe practice of
art in life in different ways; shematerialisesher womenwho
perform andpracticetheir arts,in which the possibility of
individual identity is pursuedand could be realised.

Sparkcutsthrough the limitations which afflict Butler's
theory by effectsof art and for effectsof art. This doesnot
simply meanthat asa novelist shecanprovide subtle and concrete
examplesof perfon-nersin her fiction: shenot only brings her

246

discussionsinto her practice of art, but alsobrings the role of art
in life into the whole discussionconcerningidentity. Both inside
and outsideher practice of art,,her emphasison the role of art adds
a significant dimensionto this discussion,and it is the problem of
the binary thinking commonto the notion of art andthe notion of
individual that servesher well to discussthem together. Her
performers,in their actionsand in their figures, provoke all the
questionsaboutart and aboutindividual subjectivity: they are
themselvespostmodemembodimentsof thesetwo notions. She
brings various figures of the individual into the equally unlimited
scopeof art, without generalisation. Shecreatesher performer
"character" eachasa unique exampleof the operationandthe
dynamicsbetweeneffectsproducedby a performer and a
performer aseffects. With them, sheexploresthe field of visible
effects,of performance:the "artificial, " "surface," "outer." And
this field, after all,,is that of art, accordingto a sacramentalview
of the world in the writings of Muriel Spark.

A Paradox of "Character" and "the Public Image"
Spark choosesa professionalimage-makerasa suitablefigure to
offer his version of theory- of "performativity" - of the self and
its actsin terms of effects. In ThePublic Image, Annabel counts
on Luigi Leopardi, an Italian film director,because"He was not at
all concernedor cynical aboutthe differencebetweenher private
life andher public image;he did not recognizethat any
discrepancyexisted" (PI 33). Luigi lecturesAnnabel:

He said, "What is personalitybut the effect onehason

247

others? Life is all the achievementof an effect. Only
the animalsremain natural." He told her that personality
was different from a person's character,but evencharacter
could changeover the years,dependingon the habits one
practised. "I seeno hypocrisy in living up to what the
public thinks of you," he said. (P133-34)
Although the voice of this businessmanof the image-making
industry shouldnot taken asthe author's,his lectureis not far
from her view. Sparkseesirony, if not hypocrisy, in badly living
up to an imageone claims to be true, for the very self could be as
visible asits badly-madeimage: a transparent,cracked,or fake
mask-a work of a bad art or a pseudo-art,in other words.88 In
this sense,no discrepancyexists. If we arenot blind, we cansee
people asthey are. Sparkseeshypocrisy rather in concedingthat
there is alwayssometrue "character" hidden underthe effect
called "personality" -or "the public image" in Annabel's case.
The evolution of Spark'sperformerheroinesruns parallel to
the developmentof their awarenessof the self and its acts- and
the imageasits effect. Miss Brodie hasnone of suchawareness:
sheis a "natural" performer. Alexandra, perfectly awareof
everything abouther performance,is an expert in calculating and
manipulating its effect - herself aseffect. In terms of this

11Sparkhassomeof her characters- Lise of TheDriver's Seat,or Sir Quentinin
Loitering ivith Intent, for instance- revealnothing but suchmasks,nothing under
them. For anotherexample,thereis an invention of the type called "English Rose"
in Loitering irith Intent. A coupleof femalecharacters,who put on this role of
"English Rose" astheir idea of feminine, virtuous andrighteouswomen,betray their
vulgarity, snobberyor greedin their words and actions,aswell astheir "English
Rose" perfume and "English Rose" lipstick left on a rim of a cup.

248

awarenesst,he figure of Annabel fits in the gapbetweenthe other
performers. Through her professionalcareerandher business
sense,Annabel's eyesgradually opento the effect of her public
image andhow to handle it - andher handling of the imageis
ingeniousbut haphazard,for her own awarenessis still
inarticulate. Through her performanceof the "English Lady
Tigee' in films and in life, shemimes, improvises- evenreinvents
it, to a degree- and finally grows out of it. ThePublic Image
illustratesthe processof building up one's "character" on
possibilities andpotentialities in a certain situation, insteadof
searchingor denying any prediscursivestructure.

Annabel, at first, is perfectmaterial as an object of Luigi's
art. His "Lady Tiger" unfailingly evokesthe marvelouserotic
image in Italian melodramaticfilms with somewhatmoral
endings;evenif her fiery tiger-eyeslook back at the male gaze,
her sexualdesirein them is confinedwithin marriage. Annabel,
supposedlya professionaland a greatactress,is actually a film
starby luck: "she only had to exist; shedid not needto perform,
sheonly had to be there in front of the cameras"(PI 11),asshe
herself realises8. 9 The audienceinterpret what they seein her
imageasthey please:"tiger-sex" (PI 101) in the conjugalbed,her
secretpassionunderher English callousness. To Luigi's

'39Laura Mulvey's "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" (1975) discusses, in
terms of psychoanalysis, how cinematic form and its representation have been
structured by the patriarchal order. Annabel is objectified by "the active male
gaze" precisely in the way Mulvey argues in this pioneering article of feminist film
theory: "The presence of woman is an indispensable element of spectacle in normal
narrative film, yet her visual presence tends to work against the development of a
story-line, to freeze the flow of action in moments of erotic contemplation"(Mulvey
442).

249