Is Brookner our contemporary? It might be a strange question to ask of a writer active so recently, whose last work of fiction was published in 2011. But even then there was less labelling, less ready codification of social and emotional malaise. In 2011 we heard talk of mental health less often, though not quite as infrequently as in 1981, when Brookner's first novel came out.
Hermione Lee, Brookner's later biographer, offers an insightful, psychoanalytical review (here) of A Friend from England, one of Brookner's 1980s novels, inexplicably now out of print. Though the protagonist, Rachel, hasn't read Freud, 'Freud,' says Lee, 'would have wanted to read her':
[S]he is an extreme case in the Brookner hospital, off in her own isolation ward.
Time and again Brookner's characters worry the reader. Nominatively determined Herz, in The Next Big Thing, endures cardiac discomfort, but his visit to his GP baffles the harassed young doctor, with talk of Freud, the Acropolis, and 'having gone beyond the father'. Mrs May, in Visitors, suffers similar flutterings, but does less than Herz. 'You mean she won't go to a doctor?' writes an exasperated Jacqueline Carey (here).
Viewed dispassionately, Dorothea is probably clinically depressed,
continues Carey. But we do not view the Brookner project in this way: we are 'lulled into accepting', in Carey's words, extraordinary behaviour. Only the more extremely disaffected personages - Rachel in A Friend from England, Frances in Look at Me, Claire in Undue Influence - prompt more urgently the question lurking in any reader's mind: What is wrong with these people?
Nowadays novelists celebrate neurodiversity more explicitly. Characters fit diagnoses. Traits are accurate. Research has been done - and interpretation closed down. Such and such a novel is, we are assured, 'about' autism, or Oppositional Defiant Disorder, or Tourette's.
But Brookner will not be plain, will not name. Why? Because she lacks the language, lacks the easy categories of today? Or because she hails from a time when labels were thought to flatten character and problems were not always solvable, when complexity was part of the value of being human, and human unknowableness if not a virtue was certainly a motor for art.
Comments