The Mookse and the Gripes discussion

The Promise by Damon Galgut

Less “Four Wedding and A Funeral” than “Four Funerals and A Partheid”

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

I will be in a very small minority on this I know but I found the very deliberate and intrusive omniscient narrator switching character and person; the very contrived cyclical set up of the book; and even the "this would not even happen in a novel references" just gimmicky and ineffective when most others will see them as literary genius.

I think though its my bias - a book by white South African who as far as I can see did OK in apartheid years (maybe that is very unfair)- and about a bunch of racist South Africans and with a narrator who says the unsayable (De Verwoerd “a great man” and the Pienarr/Mandela encounter that of a “beefy Boer and the old terrorist”) just triggering. As a student about the main political thing I was interested in was anti-apartheid and I still hate apartheid to this day so I think for me reading this book was like students today will feel reading a book by someone who is a Republican in 30 years time on Donald Trump.

You haven't exactly sold me on this one.

(Although if you remember your anti-aparthied student days consisted of keeping your Barclays Bank account - you just had your student loan paid into another one)

I kept having the Spitting Image song in my head for the whole book - you know the one

I know the one. And it is not surprising mun that you thought of it.

A book about the Trump years by a Republican would invoke in me the same strong feelings you’ve shared here Gumble. I’ll give this a pass.

I would definitely not Wendy - I think you may well love it. The swooping playful narrative voice is astonishing (it switches from first to second to third person to first person plural often in one paragraph) - it’s probably one of the few experimental books on the list.

I am just trying to articulate my clear bias against it which meant I failed to appreciate it.

Now you are reselling me on it.

I would definitely read it. You can either love it or join me in the chorus.

Someone needs to post the Spitting Image link

I’ll read it, knowing going in that there will be aspects to the book I don’t like. I doubt any of us is pro-apartheid or pro-racism, but I appreciate knowing ahead of time what to expect. So I guess I am reading this now.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "I would definitely read it. You can either love it or join me in the chorus."

I'm with you, GY. I had issues with the concept (the story of SA through a single family), and didn't feel the technique of a kind of shifting omniscience had been given the technical attention it required.

2* - www.goodreads.com/review/show/3976689183

I live in South Africa and am nervous to read it - I wonder whether it grapples with issues of race, land expropriation etc in manner that's relevant to South Africans today, or if it's an account of apartheid era issues written for the edification of non-South Africans. I will read it soon and report back.

I’m in the “really liked it” crowd. I especially enjoyed the writing with the floating narrator. In fact, it was the style that sold me on it after a shaky start. But I can see that not everyone will enjoy that style.

I’m too curious about the 2 stars and vs 5 stars from readers whose judgement I trust to not read it myself.

Not having read it, it feels like the narrative style is distinctive and will therefore me a bit Marmite* plus there is the topic of do I really want to read a book about a pro-apartheid+ South African perspective on South African history (Gumble’s Trump supporter analogy).

* though is there really anyone who doesn’t like Marmite or just people who have yet to try it?

+ characters not author

But it sounds worth a try and I have ordered it

My two stars us very biased by that plus what I felt was it’s contrived nature. I am sure it would increase a lot on a re-read

I liked the promise. I don't disagree with GY's analysis except to say that the same things that turned GY off are precisely what I thought make this a great work.

(Minor spoilers ahead)

Galgut's choice to write a a white-centered narrative coinciding with the demise of apartheid is deliberate. The limitations of that view - and the lie on which the promise is made - is the whole point of the book. Almost no black character has a voice until the end and, when Lukas speaks, the whole narrative of who can make a promise and who owes what to whom is dismantled. I found that very powerful.

Like GY, I also found the roving narrative voice a bit distracting at times but, again, I think it was a deliberate choice to jump between literally dozens of white voices without the perspective of a black voice until the end.

Absolutely David - mine was an entirely personal reaction ie it’s me not the book.

Your comments are excellent and spot on.

Oddly I did not react the same way to Karen Jennings although Marchpane/Maggie (one of the most thoughtful as well as popular reviewers of literary fiction on Goodreads) has raised some legitimate questions on that book.

GY, where can we find Marchpane’s thoughts on the book? I haven’t read this yet, so I just skimmed your review, but paid attention to your personal reservations about the book. I’d like to read Marchpane’s questions as well.

Marchpane's questions were on An Island not this one

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Can I quote you from message 12 in that review, Paul?

Thanks for this discussion - I now understand a bit more why I liked this book so much. I liked it for the reasons David says it is a great work and because I loved the narrative voice. I can see that either of those things could put someone off the book, but both worked for me making a great combination.

WndyJW wrote: "Can I quote you from message 12 in that review, Paul?"

No because that is someone else called Paul with a rather less well refined taste in books.

I’m so curious about this book now!

The judges' citation:

'The Promise is a testament to the flourishing of the novel in the 21st century. Here, nothing is as it seems. The standard narrative logic of an omniscient narrator is here expanded and reinvented to create an eye so intrusive its gaze is totally untrammelled. It is through these eyes that the fate of a white South African family burdened with old lives, old wounds, crimes against humanity, dark history and misreckonings, becomes, cumulatively, the fate of South Africa itself'

This is an interesting explanation of the unique narrative voice - sorry its quite long but I think worth including in full

"But, you know, every book written in the third person has, by tradition, an omniscient voice narrating its story. I’ve been wanting to write a third-person narrative for quite a while, and have been frustrated by the conventions of the genre. In the end a third-person narration is not much different to a first-person narration, in the sense that you’re limited, usually, by the conventions that apply. So even an omniscient narrator is meant to tell you a story that’s grounded in scenes that are well established, in which the reader gets a sense that, okay, this is your main character, this might be your antagonist, this is the background to the situation we’re in, and so on. All of which is a kind of creaky way of wheeling the machinery into place and setting the plot in motion. And I did begin this in a more conventional way. I started writing the story as I conceived it and quickly became quite frustrated with myself and with it, and with the limitations that it posed. And then fortuitously or otherwise I got sidetracked into writing a couple of drafts of a film script which was offered to me, I’m talking a few years back, I needed the money, I needed the diversion, and I was happy to be sidetracked for eight months or so. And, you know, the film script in one very key respect transformed my book for me. Because when I returned to the novel, the mode of narration that film scripts required was still very much in my brain, and I suddenly saw that all my frustrations with the third-person narration could be subverted if I just extended the range of the voice a little bit. In other words what I saw was that it was possible to work with prose in the same way that a film works; that I could tell the story with the logic of a cinematic narrative. I could zoom in up close on a particular moment, I could pull back really, really far and give it a kind of historical, epic dimension, I could jump from character to character, even in the middle of the scene, because cameras work like that. And this realisation was sort of scary because I didn’t know if it would work, but it was also quite liberating because it gave me the means to play narratively. So that’s what I did. And part of the playing, which you’ve put your finger on, is that it opened up this space in the narrative voice where I could comment on the fact that I was narrating something. So this is a narrator who’s telling you what happens, but at the same time knows that he or she is telling a story and is aware of the way in which he or she is doing that and can comment on it as well."

"You mentioned the fact that we have a central black character whose life is not explained, whose experiences are not narrated. Now obviously that’s a deliberate choice on my part. I mean I could have gone there, but in terms of the subject matter of this book I decided early on that this is a book about white South Africans, it’s about the white South African psyche, if there is an entity like that, and I thought I would look at the black characters that turn up in the story only as far as the white gaze of this narration would go, which is to say not very far at all. So there was a certain amount of fun, painful fun but fun nevertheless, in giving you a little bit of knowledge about these black characters and then stopping right there, because I know the white characters in this house would not have enquired any further than that, so that’s as much as I’m telling my audience as well. In a way my not telling you something tells you something about how people think"

Full interview is here - its very insightful

https://johannesburgreviewofbooks.com...

I find his closing ambiguity (or at least second hand ambiguity) about "The Disgrace" very interesting.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "This is an interesting explanation of the unique narrative voice - sorry its quite long but I think worth including in full"

Thank for this. For me, this just reiterates how this book might have felt innovative and/or politically-charged in the 1980s or 1990s - but for 2021?

Self-conscious narrators who comment on their own storytelling have been around, surely, as long as literature has existed.

I don't think he is claiming to be innovative per se (he references Woolf for example) just that he found this a way to access the third person which he had previously avoided

I just finished the The Promise and, as a South African, I think the book lands very differenly. It is a fable on the biggest political challenge that South Africa is currently facing, which is Land Expropriation without Compensation (taking away land from private owners and private businesses and giving it to communities with a historical claim on it):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_re...

The constitution has recently been amended to allow for the seizure of private land without compensation:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa...

Land reform is ongoing but expected to accelerate in the future.

There is of course the fear that this move will turn South Africa into Zimbabwe 2.0, drive away foreign investment etc etc. In this light, the characters of Anton and Amor represent two (white) South African viewpoints on the matter. Anton = acknowledgement but inaction. Amor = sympathy to historic claims and necessary sacrifice. (Each chapter starts with either Armor or Anton, and ends with the perspective of the other.)

Far from being pro-apartheid, to me, the book reads like a challenge to (white) South Africans on the topic of land expropriation, and the moral journey that many have had to engage with. The voice of Lukas in the last chapter, for example, is a nod to the EFF (Economic Freedom Fighters party) and the evolving rhetoric on land ownership.

PS. To read about the above issues from the perspective of black South African writers, one would need to turn to non-fiction eg:

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.co.za/...

https://www.hsrcpress.ac.za/books/the...

https://www.panmacmillan.co.za/author...

I think that matches what the author says about the Anton and Amor characters in the interview and is honest enough to say he is somewhat between the two.

It was also interesting, to me, how the book evokes not only the different eras in South African history, but also the four seasons, which mirror the sequence of seasons in Anton's half-novel:

Chapter 1: Spring of 1986 (clues: “the jacarandas are all in bloom” and “jacaranda blossoms pop absurdly underfoot”)

Chapter 2: Winter of 1995 (clues: “yesterday was a public holiday, Youth Day”, which is 16 June + later description of Rugby World Cup final, which took place on 24 June 1995)

Chapter 3: Autumn of 2004 (clues: mention of Thabo Mbeki’s second inauguration which took place on 27 April 2004, plus descriptions of “brown grass verges and jacarandas losing their leaves”)

Chapter 4: Summer of late 2017 / early 2018 (clues: “It’s a public holiday, Reconciliation Day” which takes place on December 16th, up to the resignation of Jacob Zuma which took place on 14 February 2018)

These seasons reflect the different moods of the book itself:

Chapter 1: Promise
Chapter 2: Defeat
Chapter 3: Return
Chapter 4: Ripening

I'm basing the above keywords on the quote on page 231:

"The phases of the man's life, separated by intervals of roughly ten years, will map out his development into full maturity, from promise through defeat to return and ripening, in tandem with the seasons".

That’s an extremely helpful perspective, thanks

And on GY comment I also thought it was intriguing and very open of the author as well to admit he is perhaps closer to Anton in his views, if he was being honest as to how he feels, in part as he feels the land issue is a distraction (though is it?) and he is unconvinced the government would use the land / any wealth tax for good.

I am impressed with this so far though. I know GY you mentioned it was like reading a book in 20 years time about Trump supporters, and perhaps by someone who admits he can see their viewpoint, but we actually need more of that in literature. As I have said before, one of the least diverse aspects of literary fiction is any political perspective outside a very narrow, typically liberal and internationalist, one. Doesn’t mean you have to like the narrator/characters but it is good to be challenged.

And on the Woolf comparison (the author acknowledges the inspiration, having come to Woolf for the first time while writing this novel) in a sense it isn’t innovative ….

Except most Anglophone fiction written today seems to be written as if Woolf, Joyce, Kafka, Borges etc had never existed and the 19th century British novel was the pinnacle of the art form. See for example much of the rest of the list.

True Paul - the voice of white South Africans is very under represented in literature - pushed out by all the black voices.

Fair point.

The jury’s comment (or is it the Booker foundation) about. Or having considered the make up of the list is, as you said on another thread I think, very telling.

But_i_thought_ wrote: "It was also interesting, to me, how the book evokes not only the different eras in South African history, but also the four seasons, which mirror the sequence of seasons in Anton's half-novel:

Cha..."

That's really well spotted - I have seen an interview with the author where he says he was disappointed that effectively no one had seen the idea of the different seasons (it could well be the one I posted)

In this part of an interview where he also expressed surprise that readers were seeing the novel as so political.

Each funeral takes place in a different season. It’s not important whether the reader notices that or not but it’s important to me. And I was somewhat surprised that so many readers have picked up on the political or historical dimension of the book, because it wasn’t that big in my own mind. I was seeing the characters and the personal aspect as much larger than the politics—it was meant to be, you know, wallpaper—but very clearly that’s not the way it’s come across. So if this is a book rising to meet the historical moment—I had no such grandiose intention when I began. I’m very, very happy if I fulfilled that, but to be honest with you it was not part of what I was aspiring to.

Paul wrote: "...he feels the land issue is a distraction (though is it?) and he is unconvinced the government would use the land / any wealth tax for good.

This is a debate that rages in our news cycle on a weekly basis.

I know a lawyer who worked on land reform cases. What happens in many cases of land expropriation is that the underprivileged community in question is offered the land OR the option of taking money for the sale of the land, and in many cases (perhaps most) they prefer instant cash. (This has significance with how the novel ends.) So fast forward a few years, repeat the cycle and land ownership percentages still haven’t changed significantly.

There are many issues that need to be addressed concurrently such as poverty, unemployment, education etc. Land reform on its own is unlikely to be the silver bullet that some politicians make it out to be.

But the overall metaphor - of certain groups giving up some of their privileges to move South Africa forward - stands.

Having now read part 1 the narrative voice most reminds me of Saramago.

The South African perspective is so helpful. Thanks for all that background. There’s more nuance here than I realized, but I’m not sure which way that cuts for me.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "True Paul - the voice of white South Africans is very under represented in literature - pushed out by all the black voices."

Is that true though? Just thinking of André Brink, J.M. Coetzee, Nadine Gordimer, Doris Lessing, the two on this Booker list - three of whom are Nobel prize winners.

Paul wrote: "And I was somewhat surprised that so many readers have picked up on the political or historical dimension of the book, because it wasn’t that big in my own mind. I was seeing the characters and the personal aspect as much larger than the politics"

It seems astonishing to me that a book set in South Africa from 1986-2018, centred on a white family and a promise made to a Black servant can be anything other than political. Perhaps this is why I found it so unsatisfying?

Roman Clodia wrote: "Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "True Paul - the voice of white South Africans is very under represented in literature - pushed out by all the black voices."

Is that true though? Just think..."

I was being ironical RC

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "I was being ironical RC"

Oops, sorry! Thought that was a weird thing for you to say :)

That seems to be part of Galgut’s issue, as he has put it, that it is very hard for a South African novel not to be political.

Not commenting on the societal aspects yet after 100 pages but only wanted to say how refreshing this narrative style feels, jumping from consciousness to consciousness like in some of my favourite modernist prose (Woolf, Mansfield), but still different because of the multiple persons (1st/2nd/3rd). It is amazing how little this kind of style is used at the moment. I think it works wonderfully here, and that alone is boosting this to the top of my rankings at least for now. We’ll see.

Paul wrote: "That seems to be part of Galgut’s issue, as he has put it, that it is very hard for a South African novel not to be political."

I read his comments as implying the opposite: "the political or historical dimension of the book... wasn’t that big in my own mind. I was seeing the characters and the personal aspect as much larger than the politics"

I think we are sort of agreeing - I have (iirc) from interviews heard him say that a novel set in South Africa during those years ends up being political, or interpreted as political, even if it isn’t meant that way.