If you read my favourite books of 2022 list, you’ll know that Margaret Laurence came out on top – with A Jest of God, a brilliant short book about a woman called Rachel living a claustrophobic, hopeless life in a small Canadian town. I also read The Diviners last year, and read The Stone Angel many years ago – which meant that I only had two novels from Laurence’s Manawaka sequence left. One is a collection of short stories that I don’t own, and one is the book I recently finished: The Fire-Dwellers (1969).
There are a few connections between the books in the Manawaka sequence (though they can be read in any order). Perhaps the clearest link is between A Jest of God and The Fire-Dwellers – as The Fire-Dwellers is the story of Rachel’s sister, Stacey.
Stacey appears in the peripheries of A Jest of God as the sister who managed to get out of the town. Her life is only sketched in fragments, but she is held up as a contrast to Rachel’s stultifying inability to develop. In The Fire-Dwellers, we discover that her life has been far from ideal.
I’ve imagined myself getting away more times than I can tell you
Then do it.
Stacey looks at him, appalled and shaken by the suggestion of choice. Then she turns away again.
If I had two lives, I would. You think I don’t want to?
Yes, she has the husband, Mac, and the children – but she feels trapped and lost. Her marriage is hollow and sad, her children don’t bring her the fulfilment that she hoped they would, and the drudgery of daily life is overwhelming. As a theme, it is hardly unique – but Laurence brings her trademark insight to the telling. She is so good at getting beneath the skin of the everywoman. Her searing insights are remorseless. No character can hide behind pretences, even as we see their attempts at dissemblement – which might, indeed, fool the people around them, if not the reader. Her husband, for instance, is so fixated on an affair that he wrongly believes she’s had that he doesn’t notice the affair that she might have. The children are at an age where it is inconceivable that their parents might have independent personalities outside of ‘mother’ and ‘father’ – though the oldest daughter is beginning to recognise this, and clearly finds it troubling.
Several of the side characters are drawn really well. There is Thor, the head of the vitamin company for which Mac is salesman – a company that is only millimetres away from being a cult, and Thor is every bit the darkly boistrous cult leader. There is Mac’s boorish best friend – a trucker whose chief pleasure comes from playing ‘chicken’ with other truckers, both facing each other down in the middle of the road, daring the other truck to last as long as possible before pulling to the side. And then there is the enigmatic man that gives Stacey a new lease of life – a kind, clever, funny man who is not unlike the man who intervenes in Rachel’s life in A Jest of God. Across the span of Manitoba, the sisters were experiencing similar epiphanies that they never communicated about. And neither is a panacea, because Laurence is too realistic for that.
So, did I love The Fire-Dwellers as much as A Jest of God? Well, I’ve made it sound wonderful – and I know that others have found it brilliant, including Barbara’s Book Obsession recently, but I’m afraid I didn’t love it. And that’s for one reason which may or may not matter to you, and which might have been clear from the quote at the top. For some reason, Laurence decided not to use speech marks in this novel.
Normally I give up on a novel immediately if I see it doesn’t have speech marks. I only persevered because I love Laurence. Some people don’t mind this increasingly common authorial choice, but I find it maddening – an affectation that doesn’t add anything to a book, and simply makes it harder to read. They might as well leave out spaces between words. (I did, actually, find Laurence’s technique of sometimes leaving several spaces between words rather more effective.)
Here’s a section that illustrates it as well as any other bit. When she uses a dash, it is internal thought.
Duncan, for goodness sake shut up and quit making such a fuss about nothing.
Leave him, Mac. He was scared. Ian told him a rusty nail would
Scared, hell. He doesn’t need to roar like that. Shut up, Duncan, you hear me?
Duncan nods, gulps down salt from his eyes and the mucus from his nose. His chest heaves and he continues to cry, but quietly. Mac clamps a hand on his shoulder and spins him around.
Now listen here, Duncan. I’ll give you one minute to stop.
Duncan stares with wet slit-eyes into his father’s face. Stacey clenches her hands together.
-I could kill you, Mac. I could stab you to the very heart right this minute. But how can I even argue, after last night? My bargaining power is at an all-time low. Damn you. Damn you. Take your hands off my kid.
Perhaps you think this is a silly reason not to enjoy a book as much as I’d hoped. (Someone on Twitter certainly did!) Or perhaps you’re on the same page as me. I just found it frustrating that The Fire-Dwellers could have been a brilliant novel, in my opinion, if she hadn’t tried this affected stylistic avenue. I understand that people like to play with the limits of literary form, but the absence of speech marks would have looked a little ‘done’ by the 1930s, and brought nothing to the table in 1969.
So this is comfortably my least favourite of the Manawaka sequence, though there is enough of Laurence’s brilliance to keep me going. Ultimately I found it a frustrating read, but it still hasn’t dinted my belief that Laurence is one of the best writers of the second half of the 20th century.
I am looking forward to reading ‘A Jest of God’ as your review encouraged me to buy it as being something I would definitely enjoy. I was therefore interested to read this post about another of Laurence’s books. However, like you, petty as it may seem, the extract you quoted made me much less keen to read this one, as I agree, the lack of speech marks would make reading it for me seem very annoying. If it had not been for this, the story does sound as if it might be one that would appeal. Perhaps it is a good thing that I don’t feel I have to rush to seek this one out as my 2023 resolution to get through my ‘to be read’ pile’ is not going very well!
(BTW, I have finished ‘Ruth’ so am ready for your next tea or books (no pressure!!) and I think you would like ‘Loved and Envied’, especially if you enjoyed ‘The Squire).
I’m glad it’s not just me – but it doesn’t make the other books any less good, thankfully! And saves the tbr growing…
Hoping to record podcast tomorrow, if Rachel is ready!
I would definitely agree with you Simon – I’ve read books without speechmarks and plenty of experimental books, but there’s something about the quotes you give here that doesn’t work for me. Shame, when it’s an author you love.
I was tempted to go through with a biro :D
I just found A Jest of God, looking forward to reading it because of how much you enjoyed it.
Hurrah, really hope you get a lot out of it too.
That last quote from the book makes my head spin. I couldn’t read a whole book like that.
On the topic of claustrophobic rural/small town Canada, have you read Mary Lawson’s books? I loved them all, but The Other Side of the Bridge was my favorite, taking place in the 1930s and covering the war as well.
I love Mary Lawson! That’s my favourite too – in fact, it was my favourite read of 2021. I still have Road Ends to read.
I’m with you – that is annoying and confusing! How did you know the dash gave the internal monologue? And how clumsy that is. Grrrr.
She does that dash trick throughout and it took me QUITE a while to understand what was going on!
I loved Stone Angel, The Diviners and The Jest of God. I have had this tbr for ages. It does sound very good, so it’s a shame it didn’t quite hit the spot for you. I will read it eventually.
Fingers crossed that it works better for you than for me!
You’ve reminded me I do want to dig A Jest of God out of the TBR. Usually I don’t mind lack of speech marks, but the example you gave I found confusing, it would definitely have affected my enjoyment of the book.
The lack of quotation marks seems to be a variable thing with me. Recently I read Miriam Toews’s Women Talking, and I was well into it before I noticed there were no quotation marks. (?!) Perhaps because there aren’t rapid back and forth conversations. Margaret Atwood sometimes does it too, and again, I don’t necessarily notice it up front. But if it hits you in the eye, yeah, it makes for heavy going. (No, not specifically a Canadian thing, that I’m aware of.)
Anyway, Margaret Laurence. Thanks for your recent (ish) review of The Diviners. I pulled it out of my shelves for a reread after a lot of decades, and found myself loving it in a way I hadn’t before. Fairly autobiographical, actually, as is A Bird in the House. I recommend her memoir Dance Upon the Earth if you can find it.
I added A Jest of God to my TBR list, based on your review. I enjoyed The Stone Angel many years ago. Your mention of truckers playing chicken reminds me that I read about this practice in a book by a different Canadian writer, As Far as You’ll Take Me, by Lorna Whishaw. It’s her memoir of hitchhiking from British Columbia to Alaska in the 1950s and she’s a passenger in a truck when this happens and it’s absolutely terrifying.