The
proposer began by referring to two members of the group not present who
had sent messages implying that they had found this book boring, perhaps
not persevering to the conclusion. On the other hand, it had reached
the shortlist for this year’s Man Booker Prize, and received glowing
reviews in the press. In fact, the proposer had found the book while
browsing a list of recommended new novels for 2016 several months
previously. Rather than a set of short stories about different
characters, he saw the book development as that of ‘Everyman’, a
continuous development of a single and often chastening life experience.
The others
who were present had not found the book boring, although one reader
expressed the view that it was more like a collection of short stories,
and he would have preferred more unified plot development in a
novel. Others liked the way that the book’s structure was more thematic
than plot-driven. The proposer revealed that in an interview published
in The Guardian, Szalay had revealed that the book began as a single
short story, and he later had the idea of expanding it to be about
disparate men at different stages of their lives in different parts of
Europe. One member of the group remarked that having started with
expectations of a more conventional novel, he adjusted quickly to what
he saw as more a series of portraits than stories. He felt the social
situations of the characters were well delineated, and the drifting
nature of the narratives reminded him of Murakami’s writing. All the
men (there are nine principal protagonists in the book, and one
re-appears in the last story) were ‘outsiders’, not well-adjusted to
society or relationships. In this respect he was reminded of other
European novels such as Camus’ ‘L’Etranger’ and Barbusse’s ‘Hell’.
Some of us
were quickly drawn into the book because the first story resonated so
strongly with our own experiences of inter-railing as young men. It was
noted that Simon, the protagonist of this first section, was referred
to as the grandson of Tony in the final part of the book. However, this
seemed only a perfunctory gesture towards the conventional unity of a
novel’s narrative. (Another is Murray’s glimpse of what might well be
the character Aleksandr’s yacht). We did see many links between the
characters however – for example the proposer suggested that Aleksandr,
with his business empire, could be James twenty years on. Also most of
the men were failures – even the ‘successful’ ones – and the book was
strongly tinged with melancholy overall. As a general observation, we
felt that the characters illustrated a predominantly male inclination to
focus on ‘things’ (status, career, money, sex) rather than
relationships, and so they suffered the consequences.
Some of the
characters had redeeming features – for example Balazs begins to
interact sympathetically with the prostitute Emma rather than simply
lusting for her, and in general one felt sympathy for the characters’
troubles. An exception was the tabloid journalist Kristian. It was
pointed out that he has no moment of revelation or change or failure to
deal with. He doesn’t come unstuck, unlike the other characters, and
instead it is his victim, the government minister, who engages our
sympathies. There was some parallel here with Karel’s story. We feel
sorry for his girlfriend, rather than for Karel. James, too, is one
character who exhibits a faint inkling of what he is missing in not
paying attention to his son at the end of his story. Karel is another
who may – it’s not clear – emerge from his selfish bubble. Others –
like Kristian or Aleksandr – seem irredeemable.
The women in
the novel were minor characters, but cleverly delineated in such a way
that the reader could understand and sympathise with them, even though
the male characters with whom they interact generally could not. This
was best demonstrated in Karel’s story, in his brutish response to his
girlfriend’s revelation.
It was also interestingly evident in the
exchange between James and Paulette in Part Six:
James: “Love,” he says, “It messes everything up, doesn’t it?”
Paulette: “Isn’t love the whole point?”
James: “The whole point of what?”
Paulette: “Of life.”
Many of
these men have weak emotional bonds, and this is what is tragic. Their
failure to seek or cherish love means that there is no glue to bind them
to society. One reader pointed out that humans are stronger and better
together – that this is even a biological imperative, an aid to
survival.
“Carpe Diem”
was also a key theme. It’s introduced in the first story, when Simon
is reading Henry James. (“Live all you can: it’s a mistake not
to.”) Throughout the book characters have flashes of intense experience
of the present moment. Even Murray, the most abject of all the losers
in the novel, has a moment of euphoria looking at the light on the sea
near the end of his story. The last story, seeing life from the
perspective of a man in his seventies experiencing health problems, ties
up the threads of this theme. Tony can now see how short life is, and
how essential it is to live in the moment.
We enjoyed
the moments of humour in what is predominantly a somewhat depressing
book. Bernard’s sexual encounters in Cyprus, and Murray’s visit to the
fortune-teller were particularly funny – although not without
pathos. We also discussed the theme of responsibility – it was pointed
out that the earlier characters have no responsibilities, but then
things start to pile up on the later characters.
To conclude:
‘All That Man Is’ is not – in spite of its title – all that man is,
unless you have a very cynical view. The absence of love is the common
trait of these particular men; they are more focused on their activity
in life than on relationships and they suffer accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment