Syd Allan: My Review of "Babel Tower" by A.S. Byatt

http://www.jagular.com/babeltower.shtml

See Also:

This review was originally written as part of my leading a discussion about Babel Tower in a monthly book discussion group I used to attend

Introduction

When I think about writing about this book the first thing that comes to mind is that I want to do proper justice to it and not write anything which sounds trite or stupid. A. S. Byatt has spent hundreds of hours writing something, I have spent twenty or thirty hours reading it and now I am being given my share of an hour to say what I think about it but what can I say? Whenever I try to think of something interesting to say about a good book like this it always takes me back in my own thinking to my own first principles regarding why I would bother reading anything at all and why I should bother to try to say anything about what I have read. "It is only a book", you might reply, "not a metaphysical inquiry into the nature of existence. Just say a few things about the author and the characters and the metaphors and get on with it". I am only one person however. The person who reads books is the same person who works and the same person who tries to be a good father and the same person who sits in the dark staring out the window. My thinking as I do all of these things all comes from the same place and my train of thought while I read "Babel Tower" is the same as my train of thought when I cut the lawn. This is my review to do with as I see fit so I will indulge myself and start from the beginning of my own thinking.

I believe that I create the world inside my own head and that the reason for bothering to live at all, once I have taken care of the basic necessities of life, is to create things. I am the judge of what is real and what is good and what is worth creating. Trusting my own thinking is my leap of faith: my brain tells itself that it is correct, and then it tells itself that it makes sense to do so. My dreaming tells me that I am easily fooled about the true nature of reality however: I think something is real, then I dream that I have woken up and recognized that I was really mistaken, then I really wake up and realize that I was still dreaming; I dream that I ask myself whether I am dreaming and then I dream that I decide that I am awake. I do not therefore completely trust my own thoughts about the nature of reality and so I compare my ideas to those of others. I cannot truly know what someone else is thinking but comparing myself to them is better than nothing and so I do it. The arts are one of the best ways to pass thoughts from one person’s brain to another and the artistic form which appeals to me the most is literary fiction. I like fiction more than other artistic forms because it is usually done by a single artist working by themselves (which is how I read what they have done). I usually prefer writing to other things which an artist can do alone (such as painting or sculpture) because I tend to think in words rather than forms or images. I read this book and then discuss it with others in order to stimulate thoughts in my own brain and then compare my thinking with the thinking of others. When we read the same book and compare our ideas we have a reasonably good reference point from which to begin.

When I read fiction I am not necessarily interested in the life of the author and I am not primarily interested in understanding what the author is trying to communicate to me. The primary value in reading is, for me, what happens during those moments when I look away from the page and allow my own thoughts to rise up into my own awareness, during which time I am both the person thinking my thoughts and the person watching my own thoughts go by. My primary purpose in reading therefore is to stimulate my own thinking. My secondary purpose is to allow ideas from the author’s mind to pass into my own. I can never be certain whether the ideas have been transferred accurately but I decide that even a poor translation is better than nothing at all. My intention in this review therefore is not to try to say what I think A. S. Byatt is trying to say and not to try to say whether I think she said it well but rather to outline what thoughts went through my own head as I read the book. I will list a number of events and ideas from the book and then describe what passed through my mind as I encountered them.

The Fiction Author as An Artist

My favorite form of music is the single tenor voice, singing acappella. He is a man who has spent his life refining his creative skill and who is willing to risk complete failure in order to perform for us without any possibility of being rescued in the event of a catastrophe. He is a forceful and compelling example of what one person can create. The fiction writer is, for me, a gentler version of the same sort of person. She reveals her private thoughts and risks looking foolish and stupid. Once she publishes her work it can never be taken back; her thinking as it was at a moment in time is frozen on the page. I read her work in private and do not risk her finding out about my own crazy ideas. She stimulates many hours of creative thinking in my brain and I give her a few pennies in return.

Fictional Characters as Real People

One might argue that it makes no sense to talk about fictional characters as if they really existed. It might seem silly to talk about what a character really wanted or what they should have done. One might ask the same about characters in films, on television, in plays or in mythological stories. I think that as long as someone doesn’t start behaving as if they truly believe that a fictional character exists that there is only benefit from talking about fictional characters as if they were real. These characters give us a common reference point for our discussions about what real people are like and what they should do. They help us discover our own feelings about how we should behave and to compare our views with those held by others. We both can know that we both have seen exactly the same behaviour by a character and we have both heard exactly the same things about them. Talking about what a fictional character should do or whether they have behaved well has the added benefit of not offending that person if they overhear us. In my writing below I will write about the characters in "Babel Tower" with this in mind, and when I describe how I feel about a character’s behaviour or their thoughts I will not keep adding the caveat that I realize that there was not really anyone behaving in any particular way or thinking anything at all.

Syd Allan as the Reluctant Re-reader

In order to prepare this review I read Babel Tower twice. I read it the first time, then I read the preceeding two books, then I read it a second time, making notes as I went along. On my second reading there were a number of things which I was not looking forward to passing through my thinking again. There are topics which I do not like to think about because they annoy me and there seems to be nothing I can do about them. I do not like to read about characters doing these things and if it weren't for this review I would certainly not have read through them again.

The topics I did not want to read about again are:

I find that it is better not to read about these things because they just remind me how unreasonable some people can be. This is the same reason why I don't read spy novels any more - I don't want to read about people who are pretending to be what they are not and people who trust one person and condemn another when in fact the first person is working against them and the second person is their only true friend. There is already enough of this in the world and I don't want to read more about it.

The Reviewer as an Unwelcome Authority

I don't usually like book reviews except for their role in outlining the general nature of a story so that I can decide whether that is the type of story I like to read. I am not interested in whether some other person thinks the book has literary merit. I sometimes read reviews of books I have just finished reading and am usually amazed that the reviewer is writing about the same book I have read. The adjectives and cliches (whether in favour of the book or against it) are not useful. If I can get a one paragraph outline of the plot and I have a chance to read a few randomly chosen paragraphs and a bit of dialogue I can usually tell whether I want to spend ten or twenty hours of my life reading some particular book.

The Stained-Glass Window as a Metaphor

Daniel works in the basement of St. Simeon's church. Upstairs is a stained-glass window which has been reassembled after a bomb blast during World War II. No attempt was made to reassemble the pictures as they were originally constructed because it would be too difficult and too many pieces would be missing. The pieces are rearranged haphazardly and new pieces are added. There are abstract figures, odd angles and animal faces. This would make a wonderful scene in a film. It is also an interesting metaphor for how sudden events can send everything flying and sometimes it is best to create something new afterwards rather than trying to get back what is now gone. The new thing you create is a mixture of old ideas and new ones. This scene lends itself to plenty of reflection during the moments when one looks up from the page - precisely the thing I am looking for in a good book.

Culvert as the Visionary

Why do so many people want to follow someone else and do what they say? There are many examples of political, religious, literary, entertainment and educational personalities who have received money, support and adulation from adoring fans. I personally feel a strong aversion to following any cause or person too enthusiastically. Sometimes I feel that I may have been involved in some sort of mass action in a previous life and now I am trying to avoid it at all cost. As soon as I see a large group of people all doing the same thing I want to run in the other direction. In fact, I have often made an effort to ensure that I am not identified with any group whatsoever. I do not want to be known as someone from a particular country, or as a graduate of any particular university, or a follower of any religious or spiritual teachings, or a resident of any particular city or a member of any social club. Although I have a home-based business (computer consulting) I have not chosen a name for my company - there is no company, just me. I once had a client list me in her internal office phone directory under "Syd Allan Consulting Services" and I immediately called her to ask her if she could remove it. I like to go places and meet people but I do not wish to be primarily identified as anything except the person attached to my name. I am not certain why this is so but I feel it quite strongly (maybe I really have been reincarnated). If I had to be identified with a group I suppose I would choose the loosely defined group of "liberal, quasi-intellectual (pseudo-intellectual? I hope not), somewhat-literate, animal-loving, reasonably creative, self-motivated loners". Does this group have a name? How many of us might there be? Perhaps we are called "The Somewhat Self-Righteous Politically Correct Liberals Who Think That They Are The Only Ones Who Get It And Who Are All Trying To Find Each Other So They Can Stick Together And Avoid Everyone Else". www.we-should-be-in-charge.com - or - mailto:thegoodguys@if-only-everyone-else-were-like-us.org. I would start a club but then I would feel like a member of a group (and maybe no-one would show up - would that be good or bad?).

Lady Roseace as the Ideal Girlfriend

Beautiful, adventurous and horny. What else could you want? (I suppose we might wish that she was also bi-sexual; maybe she was and Jude Mason didn't have a chance to get to it before Culvert turned her into a hollow version of her previous self).

Nigel Reiver as the Comforting Lover

Religion as an Anti-Sexual Force

I am not a religious person so any ideas I would have about the role of religion in a person's life would be speculation but I suppose it's a free country (or at least as free as any other country) so I will speculate a little.

Why would religion have anything at all to say about sex (whether implicitly or explicitly)? I suppose this would depend on what religion is trying to accomplish. People who see religious belief as coming straight from God would probably not see religion as being for any particular purpose; they would probably just think that "religion" is simply the name which has become attached to something which is self-evidently true. One might argue that "nature" is not for any purpose, "wind" is not for any purpose, "gravity" is not for any purpose, the movement of the solar system through the galaxy is not for any purpose and "religion" is not for any purpose. These things just are as they are and are not, it might be argued, for any designed purpose. We find religion in almost every society throughout history and so there could not possibly have been any coordinated effort by any group of people to "design" religion to accomplish any particular task. It is clear however that the fact of the existence and pervasiveness of religion has been used by many people throughout history to further their own desired goals. It is clear that religion is sometimes used by people to control or influence the behaviour of other people.

So, we have the question: why might someone use religion to control the sexual practices of other people? Or perhaps the more general question is: why might someone use any method at all to control the sexual practices of other people? Religion is controlled by people. Some people want to control the behaviour of other people. One of the tools available to control other people is religion.

In what ways does one person's sexual activity affect someone else to such an extent that the second person might want to influence the sexual activity of the first person? The answer to this depends on whether you are asking about whether the second person is genuinely affected or whether they have simply decided that they have been affected, regardless of whether their belief is reasonable. I might decide that I am very seriously affected by the fact that you cut your fingernails with scissors rather than by using nail clippers. I might lose sleep knowing that you cross your right leg over your left one rather than crossing the left leg over the right. It might make me insane with worry knowing that you stir your coffee in a counter-clockwise direction (as opposed to the obviously infinitely superior clockwise direction). It is clear then that while perhaps people shouldn't be affected by the sexual activity of others many people have decided that they are affected by it.

So, once again, why would anyone care what I am doing in the middle of the night (or in the middle of the kitchen table, or in the middle of the floor on the service elevator in the Royal Ontario Museum). People might try to influence the sexual activity of others for several reasons:

Is religion really used by some to control the sexual practices of others? At the very least it is used to influence people to be chaste before marriage. It is also often used to influence beliefs about masturbation, homosexuality, oral sex and sex with someone other than your spouse (even if your spouse is all for it). I don't suppose I have any specific examples of this last one at hand but I expect that if you and your spouse are both anxious to involve some other person in your sexual activity that I could find a religious leader somewhere who might think that you should reconsider. I admit that poor judgement regarding sexual activities and partners can hurt a person and carry over into affecting other aspects of their life and that this could hurt other people and so we might want to say something about sexual activity in order to protect those other people. It is interesting however that so much emphasis is put on influencing a person's sexual activity and so little emphasis is put on the many other activities which can also hurt a person and the people around them: drinking alcohol, smoking, buying lottery tickets, driving while sleepy, watching too much television, eating too much saturated fat, failing to keep abreast of important technological developments which affect our ability to earn a decent income, buying over-packaged consumer products, failing to install smoke-detectors in our homes and going swimming without waiting 30 minutes after eating. I'll bet that more people are killed by sleepy driving than are killed by bi-sexual threesomes. Why wouldn't religious leaders have something to say about making sure that you know how to create a spreadsheet?

The theme of religion as an anti-sexual force is not a major theme in Babel Tower but the point was raised in the story and so I started thinking about it. There are other themes which are much more prominent in the book which I didn't really think about at all. I think that it is much better to have your own personal experience in reading a book than it is to try to have the experience which the author might have intended (if in fact she intended that we have any particular experience at all).

Colonel Grim as a Realist

Leo Reiver as a Reason to Stay Married

Nigel Reiver as the Household Patriarch

Motherhood as an Alternative to a Career

Nigel expects Frederica to drop her outside interests and her former friends and stay home with Leo while he, Nigel, runs around town with the boys. Can anything be said to support his position in these dual-income-family times? There is something to be said for kids getting to spend more time with one or both of their parents and less time with babysitters and day-care workers. It is clear in this case however that Leo would have been left in good hands (despite their shortcomings I suspect that they would have been reasonably good caretakers). Why would someone like Nigel really want Frederica to stay home quietly? It would have to relate back to his childhood of course. Doesn't everything? The author emphasizes the point that she shouldn't have married him in the first place and now that Leo is around there is no good way out of the situation. What should she do? I like the fact that the story is balanced in such a way that it is really not clear what would be best for Leo. Nigel is really screwed up. Frederica is sort of screwed up. Pippy and the sisters are surely a little screwed up as well. Agatha Mond seems like the one who has her act together. I like the idea of Leo staying with Frederica and Agatha and Saskia but I suppose that is what I am supposed to think isn't it? Would any reader really think that Leo should be at the boarding school or living with his father? Sometimes I wonder whether I am arriving at the only conclusion which is realistically allowed in some particular novel because the author has written it in a way which only allows a sensible person one choice or whether other readers would actually think that the opposite conclusion is what the author supports. Perhaps if Nigel had been a little less of an asshole the story would have been a little more balanced and the reader would really not know what is best for Leo.

Sex as a Good Ending to Any Argument

I'm afraid I have no sympathy whatsoever for a woman who sleeps with a guy who has just finished abusing or berating her. I suppose this is the easy and safe thing to say. I knew a woman who slept with a guy who knocked her around and I'm afraid I didn't ever understand her motivation (especially since nice guys were lined up to be with her). I have had hints that one might keep hoping that one might be able to get the abuser to stop and so prove one's worth as a strong force for what is right and maybe this is what is at the root of this bewildering behaviour. I have myself tried to continue friendships with women who knocked me around emotionally and so perhaps I am no different from Frederica (or my long-lost abused friend). You know that there is a good chance that the abuse will continue but the rewards of it stopping would be so great that you keep trying. I suppose that my feeling no sympathy for Frederica is really a projection of my thoughts about my own past behaviour. This is a problem which daily affects millions of people (hundreds of millions of people?) and so I don't suppose the magic solution is going to occur to me any time soon.

Frederica as the Wayward Daughter

La Tour Bruyarde as the Ideal Society

Culvert as Svengali

Nigel Reiver as a Great Lover

Daniel Orton as the Bad Father

You have to read "Still Life" to properly understand the relationship between Daniel and his son Will. Daniel's wife Stephanie died leaving Daniel with two yound children (Mary and Will). Daniel felt unable to care properly for them and left them with Stepanie's parents while Daniel set off to find his purpose in life. He felt that his children would be better cared for by their grandparents. Will was especially affected by this and it seems that he may never forgive his father's abandonment of him. Can Daniel ever make it up to Will? Is it ever too late for family members to patch things up? Is any sort of father better than no father at all? I like the fact that these two stories (Still Life and Babel Tower) are written in such a way that it is not at all clear what Daniel should have done and what he should do in the future in his role as Will's father. This may not be the way Hollywood screenplays are written but it is the way life really works. I hope that this theme continues in the next book in this series; there is lots more that A. S. Byatt could say on this issue.

Leo Reiver as the Voice of Wisdom

Hugh Pink's Letter as the Straw that Broke the Camel's Back

We are outraged that Nigel would take Hugh's letter from Frederica and that he would read it aloud. We are amused that this helps Leo to like Hugh Pink even more than if Nigel had left it alone. In some ways it is more shocking that he would read her mail than it is that he would throw a hatchet at her.

Frederica as the Woman Who Causes Her Own Problems

S&M as a Legitimate and Beneficial Activity

The theme of S&M is explored through Nigel's magazines and Culvert's public performances. I think that the real appeal of S&M (I am no Marquis de Sade but a little slap-and-tickle can be fun in the right company; is that you Daphne Merkin? Hello? Hello? Do you read me? Is anybody there?) is that all through your play-acting you know that what you are pretending is the exact opposite of the truth. You pretend to put one person at the mercy of another and the thrill is that both of you know that neither of you is acting out of any true inner desire to dominate the other. The farther you go the more you are demonstrating your trust in each other. This is why I think it is best between people who know and trust each other completely. The danger is that one of you can accuse the other later on of really believing that what was happening was real and there is nothing the other person can say after the fact to disprove it. I know that not everyone feels this way. Some people are anxious for any chance to play out their true desire to introduce genuine cruelty into their relationship with someone else. I am not sure how you could tell these two types of people apart from outside the relationship. I suppose the only important thing is that you can tell one type from another from within the relationship. This is why I think the key is that the two people know each other very well.

The Krebs as the Dark Force

The Latrines as the Deciding Factor

Colonel Grim asks Culvert "And who will be responsible for cleaning the latrines?". Good question. If Culvert were a true leader he would have volunteered to spend twenty hour a week cleaning latrines himself. This was his opportunity to gain great moral authority over his followers. How would they have been able to resist him if he had actually volunteered to do it? I suppose that the Lady Roseace and his faithful sidekick Damian would have been able to resist him (no more sweet-smelling boots) and maybe that is the point. The latrines are a good metaphor for the undesirable leavings of any human activity. No-one wants to face the consequences of all of the abundance: lots of food for lots of happy people means lots of latrine duty. If the author doesn't want to spend all day talking about the downside of an ideal community then a short conversation about latrine duty is a pretty good way to deal with the issue effectively.

Simon Poole as the Illegitimate Child

Frederica as the Victim

Nigel as the White Male Asshole

Everyone knows that middle-aged, university-educated, able-bodied, white males have done far more than their fair share of screwing up the world. I suppose that this is so well known that you can introduce a character like Nigel Reiver and have him behave as he does and not offer any explanation whatsoever for his motivation and the readers will still follow along. We do actually receive some explanation for Nigel's behaviour (some of it in the previous book) but it might have not really been necessary. We just accept that there are lots of men who are like this. So, what are we supposed to do about it? I have decided that the rest of us in that group of men cannot be satisfied with being sensitive and reading to our kids and feeding the racoons in our backyards and helping old ladies across the street and going to film festivals. We have to actively work against the other guys and reverse some of the damage they are doing (rather than simply trying not to do any damage ourselves). I think there are several things we have to do: Being a guy is usually a pretty easy job. You do the dishes once in a while, you rescue a fair maiden now and then (don't expect her to sleep with you), you take your kids to see the "Nutcracker" ballet. Despite our modern thinking it is usually the mothers who get all of the difficult day-to-day jobs and 3:00 am feedings. Most men have the luxury of worrying about the longer term (although many don't take advantage of that luxury; who do they think is going to do it?). If we all pitch in and spend part of our time kneecapping the Nigel Reivers of the world and part of our time making sure we are going to have enough money to send our kids to McGill then there should still be enough time left over for watching the occasional football game.

Leo as a Chip of the Old Block

It is interesting that Leo's ability to control his mother is very similar to Nigel's ability to control her. He says what he wants and will not take "No" for an answer. Leo's life as a man and his treatment of women would make an interesting sequel. How would the influence of his mother and that of his father balance out? If he is truly a slow learner then would he feel alienated from his mother's family and gravitate toward his father? Perhaps the men in Frederica's life, if they are diligent about it, could counter-balance Leo's father's influence. If Frederica could get her act together about choosing bedmates it might help this cause a little. I am not feeling completely optimistic about Leo's chances.

Frederica as the Book Reviewer

Jude Mason as the Eccentric, Obnoxious, Rude, Literary, Artistic Hermit

Jude is an interesting character and I like his reaction to losing the court fight. Sufficient reasons are given to explain why he is so screwed up and he is a useful device for revealing things about the other characters. Jude's life would make a good prequel for this book. Robertson Davies could really have done something with Jude Mason (not that A. S. Byatt can't).

English Grammar as Rules for Controlling Communication

Is English grammar a set of rules for controlling the way we think and communicate or is it a tool which can help us to reach our full potential in expressing ourselves? Always speaking and writing according to strict grammatical rules can sometimes feel constricting but listening to someone speak incorrectly can be an irritation. One may argue that it is possible to learn to speak and write properly without knowing the rules themselves; one learns about what "sounds right" without knowing exactly how to describe why one phrase or usage is correct and another is incorrect. I suspect that the characters are discussing a strict and detailed version of grammar studies which is far beyond my own experience and that I would find it dull and unnecessary. I suspect that for the average person (who doesn't have any compelling reason to know the exact specification of all of the rules) it would suffice to listen to and read well-structured literature and speeches and to obtain good grammatical habits primarily through osmosis.

School Teachers as Authority Figures

Mickey Impey as the Shit-Disturbing Child Advocate

The point is made in the story that Mickey Impey's antics will bring all of the other committee participants closer together - he gives them a common enemy. I don't suppose that most of the committe members will consider him in this light - they will likely just dislike him and leave it at that. Given that he provokes thought and encourages the children to stand up for themselves I think that he is a valuable addition to the committee.

Miss Godden as the Ideal Teacher

Why can't all teachers be like Miss Godden? She uses every opportunity to help the kids learn in a fun way. They learn a new word and then read all of the words in the dictionary which are on the same page as that word. Couldn't we just seek out all of the Miss Goddens in the world and greatly improve our education system? I am not very optimistic. When my daughter was in grade four she had a teacher who was perhaps the best teacher I have ever met. Cutbacks. Lack of seniority. Bye-bye Mr. Holmes. Even if he had stayed perhaps Mr. Holmes would have been beaten down by the education bureaucracy like so many other great teachers before him. Great teachers also receive a lot of grief from not-so-great parents. The only answer is to help all of the Mr. Holmes's whenever you can and take advantage of them as long as you can and then supplement your child's education yourself until the next Mr. Holmes comes along.

Daniel Orton as the Listener

Desmond Bull as the Recreational Lover

Frederica is sort of stupid about sleeping with Desmond Bull (the artist who takes her back to his apartment to see his etchings). She jeopardizes her image as a good mother and she rewards a guy who grabs her breast by having sex with him. I don't suppose he is really doing anything wrong but he isn't helping her very much. Maybe if she would masturbate more often she could leave these guys alone.

Leo Reiver as the Weapon of Choice

Nigel is very clever (perhaps unconsciously) about saying things to Frederica while Leo is present so that Frederica's available responses will be limited by their effect on her son. She can't refuse to wear the gray dress, she can't refuse to let Leo go to his father's house for Christmas. This use of children to get what one wants from one's spouse is very common and disturbing to think about.

The Gray Dress as a Metaphor

The gray dress which Nigel gives to Frederica at her family Christmas is a nice metaphor for his mysterious power over her and his ability to give her what she herself doesn't even seem to know she wants. He remembers the exactly correct shade of red. He is cruel to her and yet cares enough about her to give her exactly what is best for her. The Christmas scene as it has been written is very effective. Nigel uses Leo's presence to get Frederica to agree to talk. Nigel asks Leo if he would like to come for a visit. How is Frederica supposed to say "No"? We wonder whether Nigel and Bill or Nigel and Daniel will fight again. Nigel is both cruel and unreasonable and seductive. Frederica must put on the dress or else explain why not to Leo. It is an excellent scene.

Culvert as the Sadist

Culvert claims that some people get a genuine thrill from witnessing the suffering of others. Could this really be true? I suppose that Paul Bernardo provides a ready answer to that question. Most of us do not want to believe that we could ever enjoy watching someone else suffer. Would most of us, under the right conditions, want to see someone tortured or ritualistically murdered? Is this the dirty little secret of being a human being?

Griva as the Wise Old Woman

Samuel Origen as the Watcher

Lady Mavis' Baked Man as a Metaphor

Incompatability and Mistake as Grounds for Divorce

This part of the story made me feel angry. I cannot imagine any good reason why people who wish to divorce each other should have to justify themselves to anyone else. The idea that they are not permitted to "collude" on wanting the divorce seems ludicrous. It is interesting that it was much easier to marry someone you didn't know very well than it was to stop being married to someone you knew quite well. I am so far from thinking that divorce is anyone else's business that I am sure I would not even want to discuss reasons why is should be.

Frederica as the Plaintiff

John Ottokar as the Stalker

This part really pissed me off. John Ottokar follows Frederica home, he waits outside her house while she is having a party, he appears out of the bushes in the night and then she invites him in for sex. Is she really that hard up for companionship? Although I don't think that there is any excuse for forcing oneself on a woman sexually (regardless of what may have gone on before) I think that many women are their own worst enemies on this issue. If a guy follows you around or touches you then just tell him to fuck off and get someone else! What is so difficult about that? Women are said to like "bad boys". They can't help wanting these guys. Grow up! You are an adult! How are these guys going to learn to treat women with respect if every other woman they knock around fucks the daylights out of them in response? Come on girls, get your act together.

Paul Ottokar as the Miscreant

Private Residential Schools as the Pit of Hell

It is easy I suppose for someone in my position (no social connections, small public-school education, not a member of any social or religious group) to say that private, residential schools are bad for kids. I have read Robertson Davies and John Irving on private school antics and strict old schoolteachers and I do not wish that I had had that experience. The thing I don't understand is how everyone can know that all of these bad things go on in residential schools (and prisons) and yet no-one seems to be able to do anything about them. It bothers me less that these things apparently occur and more that no-one stops them from happening in the future. I would love to read someone's explanation (perhaps Daniel Richler would like to take a stab at it) of why no-one can stop what everyone seems to know is happening.

Agatha Mond as the Storyteller

It is wonderful that Agatha Mond is reading a story which she herself has written and that she discusses with the children the fact that she can make whatever ending she chooses. It is good for children to understand that stories are created by people and that they could have been written differently. My ten-year-old daughter is considering doing a school project in which she would prepare a detailed review of a book of her choosing and as part of it she would create some new character which could have been added to the story. She would discuss how the story would have been different if her character had been put in. She will write a new ending. Stories are important and primal forces in our society. To choose a story and read it to your child is an important and valuable gift from you to them. They will not always welcome the story you choose: I have created my own 150-minute version of Beowulf on tape for my kids and so far they have not been interested in hearing it; the Beowulf story means a lot to me but it is nothing special to them. The important thing is to show your kids that it is good to hear and understand and create stories so that they will come to appreciate the role of stories in their own lives.

Jude Mason as the Provocateur

I like to see someone make trouble for everyone else. I have been known to make a little trouble myself from time to time. I can think of several reasons why I cause problems or grief for other people but do not feel that I have to apologize for it:

So what is my explanation for asking someone in a subway station to put out their cigarrette (a guy broke my nose at the Kipling station last spring after I asked him to put out his cigarrette and he told me to fuck off and so, naturally, I felt that my manhood was being challenged and I started teasing and humiliating him until he punched me)? In an ideal world in which I was perfectly well-adjusted I would not bother with bad drivers and smoking subway riders and rude shoppers and inefficient bank-tellers and incompetent LAN administrators. I'm working on it but I can't promise that I'll be done any time soon.

Frederica as the Woman Who Thinks With Her Genitalia

It is clear that Frederica loves Leo. It is clear that in this draconian world of Divorce Court a woman who has sex with a man to whom she is not married will be at a disadvantage when she wishes to gain custody of her child. So what was she thinking when she was having sex with Desmond Bull and John Ottokar? She knows enough to move out of Thomas Poole's house so that she would not give the court the wrong impression and then she invites a stalker into her house and has sex with a guy (Desmond Bull) who says simply "You will" when told that she does not want to sleep with him. Can't she wait? When you have responsibility for a child there are some things which simply have to be done a certain way in order to best promote the child's interests. I am not arguing that I disapprove of sex outside marriage: she can sleep with a different guy every night for all I care. The point is that she knew that this would hurt her position with respect to Leo and she still did it.

I suppose I am expecting that since she is literary and intelligent and is the central figure in the story that she should be sensible. I guess it makes her a more intesting character if she is sort of screwed up. In fact, I am myself more interested in women who are sort of screwed up than I am in women who aren't. I find that a women (or a man) who is always calm and friendly is often able to avoid feeling frustrated or cranky because they don't ever try to accomplish anything. They don't care if anything is created or improved and they don't feel guilty if they don't accomplish anything and so they have nothing to feel worried or frustrated about. Acting bitchy once in a while can reveal an inner passion and a need to make things happen. It also helps a person to seem more human and makes one think that the person might be more forgiving of faults in others. I suppose I would be the first guy to critisize Frederica for her actions and also the first guy to ask her out if she were interested.

Luk Lysgaard-Peacock as Jacqueline's Sensible Alternative

Luk Lysgaard-Peacock has everything going for him (except for his ridiculous name) and so, naturally, Jacqueline wants to be with Marcus (who is really screwed up). I think that part of the appeal of being with someone who behaves badly or is a little nutty is that if they improve their behaviour while they are with us then it reflects well on our own good nature and powerful influence. If your husband beats you and then he stops because you threaten to leave him then you must be pretty important to have changed such an extreme behaviour. The more your husband beats you and the more women he has beaten before you the more it will mean if you are the only person who can get him to stop. I have recognized a good dose of this in myself in one or two of my own friendships with women. If I can get them to behave responsibly then I have been proven to be a powerful force for responsibility. I have found that the only way out of this is to grow into not needing this reassurance from outside yourself. I have no idea how you do this. I am just barely becoming aware of it slowly happening in my own life but I have no idea how to point the way for anyone else.

Nigel Reiver as the Better Provider

Nigel Reiver is clearly shown to be the better provider for Leo. He has money, access to a good private school, help around the house, a horse, a big house and so on. How can Frederica compete with this? We all know that Leo is much better off with Frederica but how is this proven to outsiders who do not know Nigel and Frederica as we do? This is a very difficult question but an important one because every day government employees go to people's homes and take away their children. Every day hundreds or maybe even thousands of judges award custody of children to one parent or the other. It is easy to say that material possessions are not the most important part of raising a child but it seems that when it comes down to it in court many of us are most impressed by what can be touched and measured. No-one has the ability to decide which parent is most worthy and yet every day it must be done by someone. Since we have all been children I suppose that most of us feel qualified to set a definition for "good parenting". My own solution to this problem is to focus on my own kids and hope for the best for all of the other children. It might not be the most generous approach but I have my hands pretty full worrying about two kids and I'm not sure how much affect I can realistically have on the other one billion children in the world.

Babbletower as Literature

My first reaction to the book trial was to say " Of course Babbletower is legitimate, valuable literature" but I suppose the author is really preaching to the converted isn't she? We read the story and we come to know Jude and Culvert and the Lady Roseace and so on and so how could we possibly agree with the censors? Is it possible that some readers of Babel Tower would actually agree that the Babbletower book should be banned?

The Identical Ottokar Twins as a Metaphor for the Duality in All of Us

Obscenity as Something to Worry About (NOT!)

Those of us for whom "liberal" is still a friendly adjective like to think of all censorship as unnecessary. I cannot think of any film, book or image which I have ever encountered which I would want to prevent others from seeing. I think that most people worry far too much about controlling what other people see and do. If those people worried a little more about taking care of their own immediate family and trying to do a decent day's work and a little less about whether my kids are looking at pornography on the Internet then we would all be better off. This all seems so obvious to me that I really don't understand how other people can feel so differently. It is clear that you cannot control all access to all hate literature, terrorist instruction manuals, seditious pamphlets and bondage videos. You can install all of the software you like but some ten-year-old kid is still going to use their classroom access to the Internet to download and display a full-colour close-up of Nina Hartley and her cheerleader girlfriends. I say let them download all the pictures they want so that we can talk to them about it and they can get over the thrill of it so that when they see something else when we aren't around they will have some tools to use in exercising good judgement.

False Accusations as a Source of Frustration

This part also upset me to read again. Nigel and Frederica are the only two people who can be certain that he threw a hatchet at her. He lies about it in order to get Leo. They are the only two people who can be absolutely certain that he is lying (the other women at his home didn't actually see what happened). Frederica is telling the truth about the incident but the judge doesn't believe her. False accusations which cannot be disproven, especially nice salacious ones, are very common and very disturbing. What is a person to do when falsely accused? In many cases one tries to argue and argue but those listening just hear the protesting as the obvious things to expect a guilty person to say. Stories about false accusations and people having to prove their own worth despite popular opinion to the contrary upset me to read. I feel the same way about stories about a person accused of being insane and trying to argue their way out of a mental institution. Catch-22. All insane people insist on their own sanity and so trying to argue your way out is proof that you deserve to stay in.

The News Media as the People Who Always Get it Wrong

In the story the news media report on the findings of the Steerforth Committee and describe their report in ways opposite to those intended by the committee members. I have had personal knowledge about a few stories which have been in the news and I have always found that the news reports get it wrong. This has made me feel quite cynical about every news story I read and hear. I am especially suspicious of the stories in which it seems totally obvious that one person has been totaly unreasonable or is obviously guilty. I think that the news business is mostly about helping the average person to feel that their own behaviour is not nearly as bad as that of the average person. If you beat your wife a little or drink a little too much then you might not feel so bad if you hear about some other guy who beats his wife and drinks a lot. This is what the TV show "Cops" is for. Every day in the Toronto Sun we read about all of the other people who can be blamed for the problems in the world. Lets all worry about whether Woody Allen should have sex with his step-daughter. Lets all have an opinion about whether O.J. killed Nicole. This will help us use up all of our time so that we don't have time left to worry about whether our spouse is getting enough sleep or whether our kid's teacher is a bully. The news business is about telling people what they want to hear, regardless of whether it is important or whether it is any of their business.

Leo as the Slow Learner

It is an interesting aspect of the story that Frederica doesn't realize that Leo cannot read well. I suppose it is a little hard to believe that she would not have caught on to this but I guess it could happen. It is an interesting way to hint at unseen consequences of Frederica and Nigel's relationship on Leo. He is damaged and she doesn't realize it. She thinks she is doing everything she can for him but it isn't enough.

In Babel Tower Bill takes the time to carefully choose a school for Will and Mary. I think that the parents are primarily responsible for ensuring that their children receive a proper education. If your thirteen-year-old kid can't read and you start blaming the school system I say to you "Where the hell have you been for the past nine years?" I first want to make sure that the teachers and school-principals are not hurting my kids and then I want to know what they are teaching them so that I can supplement wherever necessary. If I think my daughter should do some particular sort of project in her grade six class and the teacher has not asked her to do it then I will ask her to do it myself. All parents should review all of the school-work done by their kids. All parents should tell the teachers what their plan is for their child's education so that the teacher can follow along. If your kid's teacher is an asshole then you have two choices: find them another teacher or use it as a way to help your kid deal with assholes and educate your child yourself.

5 or 6 as the Total Number of Good Plots

Jude Mason says "Who was it said there are only five or six good plots?" when he is on the witness stand being questioned by Samuel Oliphant. I have heard of this idea before. What might these plots be?
  1. A good person does a good deed despite knowing that it might be misinterpreted and that they might be falsely accused of wrongdoing. They do the right thing and take their chances. They are vilified by the general public. Eventually they are vindicated (but it is too late to make a difference). Maybe they survive the ordeal, maybe they don't.
  2. A person loses everything which means anything to them, they lose their reason for living. They cannot imagine that they will every be happy again. They find a way to go on and they are stronger for it. (perhaps this is the more general case of the first plot)
  3. Two people meet and fall in love but circumstances beyond their control keep them from staying together (a special case of the second plot?) [Romeo and Juliet, Casablanca]
  4. A person must choose between conflicting loyalties [every third or fourth episode of "Start Trek The Next Generation"]
  5. A person thinks that they can achieve their goals by doing something which they know is morally wrong but they believe that the costs will be outweighed by the benefits. They are proven wrong (or not!). [Macbeth, Merchant of Venice]
  6. A person's life is ruined by their obsessive longing for something they cannot have [Othello]
  7. A person is betrayed by someone they trusted. Their faith in ever trusting anyone else is shattered. (another special case of the second plot?) [King Lear, Hamlet?]
  8. A person struggles with wondering whether the effort of trying to do the right thing is really worth it (perhaps a more general case of the first plot).

This isn't all of course but it could take forever to compile the list in this way. Perhaps a more generic list of themes in a person's life:

  1. How can I know what is real? [Metaphysics]
  2. How can I know what is true? [Epistemology]
  3. How can I know what is right (and why should I bother worrying about it)? [Ethics]
  4. Why do bad things happen to good people? [Theology]
  5. How do I combine what I know to create something new? [Logic]
  6. How do I choose between two (or more) mutually exclusive actions [Logic as well (at least this is what Commander Spock would have us believe - oh if only he was right!)]
  7. How can I deal with disappointment and tragedy without it damaging me? [Psychotherapy]
  8. What do I have in common with other human beings? [Comedy, "Seinfeld"]
  9. What am I supposed to be doing here (why bother living)?
  10. How can I best express what I am feeling (the need for which is predicated on a particular sort of answer to the previous question, i.e., why should I bother trying to express my feelings at all?) [Literature and the Arts]
  11. How can I make good connections with other people (and how can I know who to choose)?
  12. Can I really do something big and important or should I not bother trying? [Beowulf, Star Wars]
  13. Who should I choose to be my Internet Service Provider? (perhaps not a top-priority question for everyone)

Perhaps an even shorter list:

  1. Morality and personal integrity
  2. Destruction, re-building, creativity and the power of the individual
  3. Love, friendship and community
  4. Man's place in nature
  5. Corn, beans and squash (some of you will know what I mean)

The interesting thing about trying to compile a list like this (every time you get a list you think of a better way to approach the problem) is that it eventually comes back to our own feelings about issues in our own lives. The five or six good plots become the five or six topics in our own ponderings about our own lives. I suppose that if you make the topics general enough you could always encapsulate a person's life themes into five or six categories regardless of the breadth of that person's experiences and interests.

The Average Person as a Good Jury Member

The jury decides that "Babbletower" is obscene. This jury is made up of "average" citizens. The average citizen is more worried about getting details about the O.J. trial than they are about reading to their kids. End of argument.