Category: British and Irish Literature

Jacob’s Room and the Limits of Biography

1922 was a good time to be a person who read books written in English. Ulysses and The Waste Land both appeared that year, though you might have had trouble getting your hands on the former because it was banned in various places for obscenity. However, if you wanted cutting edge fiction but couldn’t get your hands on Joyce’s work, then luckily there was another great writer ready and waiting. Virginia Woolf is a wonderful writer, and every time I have returned to her I am grateful for it. My wanderings within the pages of the first of her “experimental” novels, 1922’s Jacob’s Room, was no different. This is a novel about a man where his role as plot actor is very much secondary, his voice muffled. It’s a Bildungsroman with very little Bildung. Most of all, though, it’s a frolic, a joyous exploration of what literature and language can do.

But also, however, what they cannot. Jacob’s Room concerns the short life of a young man in Edwardian England, Jacob Flanders, yet from the title alone there’s already a hint of a problem – for the title refers to his lodgings, and not to the man himself. This problem is what makes the work so fascinating – I interpret Jacob’s Room as a work that’s both determined to shake off old ideas of characterisation and literary creation, while at the same time trying to defend itself against the kind of total narrative collapse that rejecting old forms entirely might lead to or imply. It’s this strange mix of past and future, a kind of conservative modernism, that makes the work so fascinating. Compared to Ulysses, it’s really a kind of anxious battleground about what the future of literature might look like – and what it should not.

Out With The Old

Somewhere or other I remember reading that literary modernism began with a growing scepticism of the idea of character. Perhaps the best way to explain how this works is by reference to a work by one of my favourite German writers of the 19th century, Theodore Fontane, No Way Back. In that novel, our main character, Count Holk, has an affair while away from his wife. His letters home, naturally, reveal none of this. But we, readers, know the truth. And eventually his wife finds out too. Fontane uses letters as a way of exploring the communication difficulties two people can have, all the while Holk’s character remains known to us and his wife’s remains knowable too – that Holk ultimately does not understand her, leading to the novel’s tragedy, is a fault of his character, not a statement about character in general.

Letters and other writings dot the pages of Jacob’s Room as well, and as with No Way Back they are places for concealment more than communication. Jacob writes home, revealing nothing of his loves or his thoughts. His mother is delighted, “he seems to be having… a very gay time.” But what separates the treatment of writing in both works is that in Jacob’s Room there comes no revelation of the truth, no contradiction to the apparent world of the letter. The final scene sees his mother and Bonamy, the man who loved him, standing in Jacob’s empty room with “all his letters strewn about for anyone to read.” The dispersal of the letters indicates a similar dispersal of character. Who is Jacob? One person to his mother, another to Bonamy. Putting all the letters together, or the two people talking, would only be to court chaos. It’s not that character is changeable; rather, that there may be nothing solid about it all.

Other letters and writings are similarly undermined. Those of well-bred Clara are “those of a child”, and even when she writes in her diary, there’s nothing more there than air – she writes “how the weather was fine, the children demons, and Jacob Flanders unworldly.” There’s a sense that even when characters in Jacob’s Room try to express themselves, they cannot. We readers only have what we can see of them, hear of them, and that is rarely enough. “It is no use trying to sum people up. One must follow hints, not exactly what is said, not yet entirely what is done.” This phrase is repeated, word for word, twice in Jacob’s Room. What pessimism, really, lies in it – “hints,” “not exactly,” “not yet entirely”. If character is so diffuse that this is how we trap it, then clearly what we can trap will be far from the real thing.

Elsewhere that pessimism is more clear, as we can see from this description of men on a bus: “Each had his past shut in him like the leaves of a book known to him by heart; and his friends could only read the title, James Spalding, or Charles Budgeon, and the passengers going the opposite way could read nothing at all–save “a man with a red moustache,” “a young man in grey smoking a pipe.”” Traditionally, by focusing on individuals, we might get a past. This does not work here. Jacob’s father has a grave that may not be his, while the scenes of Jacob’s childhood are mere flashes of impressions with as much attention on the other characters and their thoughts as on Jacob himself.

Finally, we might hope that impersonal forces would provide a key to character. Instetten, in Fontane’s Effi Briest, decries this “society-thing” that forces him to kill a man he does not hate because of an idea of honour he is powerless to reject. What are the forces in Jacob’s Room?“The incessant commerce of banks, laboratories, chancelleries, and houses of business”, “the men in clubs and Cabinets”. Woolf explicitly names this “unseizable force” that drives men to their deaths. But whether the forces of her novel match those of, for example, Fontane’s, is another matter.

On the one hand, Jacob is shaped into seeming conventionality by a usual society – the artistically-inclined former graduates of Cambridge and Oxford. He stands for the Greeks (despite knowing the language poorly) and for Shakespeare, neither a particularly radical opinion. He has other views, such as his ideas of women, that are still more clearly conditioned by society. However, though ultimately his society does kill him – for the Great War is coming – it seems fair to say that Woolf suggests we cannot just turn to impersonal forces to describe character either. Since Jacob is hard to fix down to begin with, he is too uncertain to be moulded by external forces.

All this is to say that the novel looks to the sources of character from fiction of previous centuries – what is revealed in letters, or the forces of an impersonal society, and says these are not adequate. Even dialogue itself is typically disconnected, disjointed words floating on the page, with Jacob rarely speaking. The old ways do not work, but how does Woolf innovate and experiment to build an alternative idea of character – and what are the limits?

In With The New

If I try to think of how this novel works, what makes it modern in its depiction of character, the answer is simple – the fragmentary flashes of prose that make up the bulk of the text. Jacob’s Room is told in snatches, sometimes only a single short paragraph long. It is true that every biography is broken into events and key moments, for lives are long. But in Jacob’s Room the moments chosen are less obviously important, even when contextualised. We might read symbolic importance into them, such as by analysing the significance of the sheep’s skull he finds on the beach as a child or the image of the moth, but it’s not necessarily the case that any of the characters joins us in such narrativizing work.

All memory is fragmentary. When I try to think back to yesterday, an ordinary day, there’s scant solidity to it. I recall a few images, the food I cooked for dinner, but little more. Woolf enjoys noting vibrant colours, and drifting between her characters’ consciousnesses, as if they are already looking back from some moment a little ahead. This gives the text a kind of blurred feeling. Even its characters seem themselves a little like names on whirling sticks, because none is quite embodied, pinned down and described like a beetle in the previous century would be. Really, like certain paintings, while we may appreciate the texture of Woolf’s prose up close, it’s only when we retreat a little that we see the overall effect – the mood, the shifting shapes settling into scenes.

Such fragmentation puts action into the background and overall reflects that pessimism about getting to the heart of character which I mentioned earlier. Solidity, perhaps, comes from the novel’s interest in architecture and buildings, which, suggested by its very title provides the clearest example of this. Yet Jacob’s own room, when we first encounter it at Cambridge, gives no clue to his personality. “Jacob’s room had a round table and two low chairs.” For the first mention of the title, its lack of force is its force. He has books and the detritus recognisable to anyone who has gone to Oxbridge – “a photograph of his mother; cards from societies with little raised crescents, coats of arms, and initials.” A piece of writing in his own hand is titled “Does History consist of the Biographies of Great Men?” – a normal assignment then, as if to highlight that Jacob is really only an average Edwardian, nothing special. 

We often think of Woolf as a writer of the inner world, someone who lived in the marginal thoughts of men and women. Jacob’s Room certainly shows her moving between her characters, but of them, Jacob is probably the one inhabited least. When we hear a voice, like his room it almost seems to tell us we were fools for expecting anything more of him – “I’m twenty-two. It’s nearly the end of October. Life is thoroughly pleasant, although unfortunately there are a great number of fools about. One must apply oneself to something or other–God knows what. Everything is really very jolly–except getting up in the morning and wearing a tail coat.” Here is the gentle delusion of superiority of the untested, but does this show Jacob to be any different to a hundred thousand other young men? Certainly not.

At the beginning I mentioned a kind of anxiety to the prose. Woolf read avidly among her modernist contemporaries such as Katherine Mansfield and knew through Eliot what Joyce was up to with Ulysses, so she had a keen awareness of the options for advancing prose which were being worked upon by others. One thing I found curious was that in her revisions of the novel Woolf primarily worked to reduce instances of interiority. It was as if, while retreating from the scenes and structures of 19th century fiction – the genealogies and letters, the carefully orchestrated scenes and overheard gossip – she did not want to commit wholly to something from the 20th century, that totally absorbing, egotistical monologic stream of consciousness of the sort we read from Molly Bloom at the end of Ulysses. Something that is both extraordinary, yet at the same time a kind of dead end, for it denies the soul of every other living being.

All this is to say that it’s as if Woolf were experimenting here with trying to find a third way of characterisation, neither the pure continuous interiority of the stream of consciousness, nor the lifeless puppetry of the realist novel. A characterisation through fragments, through assembling snatched moments of life, and of consciousness, into a kind of whole. Except, if that is the goal, it is a failure. I have no idea who Jacob is, and I am not sure that any truth on that score really lurks within the novel. We may have escaped the madness of stream of consciousness and run out onto the street, but now cars are hurtling past us, and all is disorientation.

Yet if the goal is not to create a character, but to paint a world, to load readers with the impressions and thoughts of a society, then by contrast Jacob’s Room is a great success. We learn as much about Jacob in five pages as we do in fifty – giving us more is only like putting another thin sheet of coloured glass upon a heap, and indeed the effect of colouring is diminished as more and more is added. The first sheet is when things are most striking. So it is that in a single one of Woolf’s fragments she has more than enough opportunity to create her effects.

The one that sticks in my mind comes from early on, a tiny story of four pages, in which Jacob’s mother receives a letter from his tutor proposing marriage, considers it, and decides to remain independent. In this section Woolf’s total technical mastery is evident. Mrs Flanders receives the letter and, expecting nothing but remarks related to her son’s work, reads it while continuing her own business. Thus do we see her, divided: ““Yes, enough for fish-cakes tomorrow certainly – Perhaps Captain Barfoot—” she had come to the word “love.”” A few sentences on she rages at her children, not truly out of anger towards them, but because she is angry at the letter and cannot control it. This is all wonderful, delicate writing. Her emotions, a world of them, are covered in a few pages. Completeness stretches even to time – we get a little epilogue, in which some years later Mr Floyd sees Jacob by chance in London, but thinks he “had grown such a fine young man that Mr Floyd did not like to stop him in the street.”

What I am trying to say, perhaps, is that Woolf comes up against the limits of biography within this approach. She can create characters through her experimentation, certainly. But with her reluctance to travel too deep and stay too long inside their heads, as she does in her later novels, that characterisation can only go so far. That is why Jacob remains a blur, while those other characters, whose internal worlds are clearer to us, are themselves are much clearer – Mrs Dalloway or Mrs Ramsay, for example. Overall, Jacob’s Room is a book of wonderful prose, challenging forms, and experiments which remain relevant to writing even today. I did not love it as I do To the Lighthouse, but that is no matter. Woolf was such a prolific writer – of letters and diaries as well as her novels – that as readers we get a view of nearly-unmatched privilege compared to other writers. We see not just the brilliance of her experiments when they succeed, but also the many false-starts and sites of practice she needed to prepare for them. That, for anyone interested in the craft of fiction, will never not be exciting.

Widowhood and Its Narratives – Colm Tóibín’s Nora Webster

Widowhood is a word with its own well-known narratives. The shock of grief sets us up for a story of overcoming that grief. The loss of, in traditional societies and marriages, the guidance and expertise of the husband – who may, for example, have been entirely responsible for his wife’s finances – prepares us for a tale of growth into now-vacant spaces. Should the husband have been bad or later become recognised as such, we can have a story less about overcoming grief and more about becoming the person that the late partner never allowed one to be. Perhaps there might even be a new man – or woman – as confirmation of one’s new life instead of a grief-stricken stasis.

I mention these narratives not to say how the Irish writer Colm Tóibín subverts or ignores them in his novel of 2014 Nora Webster, for he largely does not. After the early death of her husband Maurice in late-sixties Ireland, Nora is visited daily by townsfolk who want to tell her how sorry they are. She grieves, and by the end of the book has largely overcome that grief. She grows a little, and not just into financial responsibility. Maurice does not turn out to be a bastard, but the life that Nora ends up leading does differ from the one they had and might have come to have had in several ways. Tóibín’s prose is every bit as considered and thoughtful as the gentle movements of his story. Conventional, predictable, a critic might say.

I am not sure, setting out on this post, how far I am one of those. Asking a book to be other than it is, is normally just a reflection of one’s own prejudices. What is true is that Nora Webster lives and dies by its details, which is unsurprising given Tóibín’s love of Henry James. It is the more nuanced growth that a reader can chart from such details that really makes the book much more interesting compared to the headline story of a woman getting over the death of her husband. How does she grow, whether this growth is entirely positive or not, and so on.

Maurice Webster took his time dying. During that time his wife nursed him, leaving their four children – Fiona and Aine, Donal and Conor – with relatives or studying elsewhere. For the prioritisation of her husband there’s the faintest suggestion of a reproach from the aunt who had taken in the two boys – “they stayed here. And it was silent. And they thought you might come and you never did.” Nora did not return calls, nor did she visit, and at the start of the book she gives herself another cause for guilt – she rashly sells the family’s holiday home to the first enquirer, even though it held wonderful memories for her children. Soon one more guilt is added – the reminder of a cruelty to a colleague some twenty-five years ago. Nora is not perfect by any means.

Besides guilt, another emotion Nora contends with is shame. One of her children has a stammer (and indeed, it stems from her abandonment during the period she nursed her husband) that she never gets round to organising a speech therapist for. Then there’s the matter of money, or rather her lack of it, which only partly explains why she sells the holiday house and does not organise the speech therapist. She has to accept an offer of employment with a local business she once worked for when still a teenager, for example, and discovers that many people she knows have done better for themselves than she has. “Nora had never heard her sister say the word “fabulously” before.” Her other sister also gets engaged without ever introducing her fiancé to Nora. Other challenges include the memory of a difficult mother, who never encouraged her to develop her musical talents.

Over the course of the book Nora does manage to address some of these emotions, but in many cases her success is limited. Her relationship to her children remains poor and distant throughout. It is his aunt who builds a darkroom for budding photographer Donal, not his mother, to whom he barely even shows his pictures. While relatives encourage (and fund) Donal to study at boarding school or Aine to go for a university in Dublin, Nora does the opposite, trying to cling on to these people without any result except furthering their mutual misunderstandings. It’s a curious marker of the novel’s structure that at the novel’s end she’s left alone with her youngest son, so that even though she has reached a kind of triumph in moving on from Maurice’s death, she has ended up in a situation is approaching desolate.

Still, in any case she has gained independence. Through music, through clothes, through haircuts and hair dyes, Nora finds a new way of representing herself. If early on in the novel her independence consisted of consciously choosing not to help with the dishes while being a guest at her sister’s home, thus going against how she had been taught to behave, later on she shows her personality through buying a record player, learning to sing, and buying some dresses. From a kind of negative freedom – a refusal – she moves to a private, affirmative one, even if it is one that is dependent upon her material conditions improving. (One of the ways time is marked in Nora Webster is the occasional comment that a recent budget has improved the allowance granted by the state to widows like herself.)

Finally, Nora even eventually turns that independence into an assertiveness. When one of her sons is moved down in class, unfairly in her view, she writes to each of the teachers declaring she will picket the school until the change is reversed. It certainly is independence, but whether it is maturity is another matter. This harms her daughter’s prospects of getting a teaching job and reveals a real thoughtless selfishness about her. When one of the teachers asks her to consider the other parents and children she simply says “I have no interest in the other parents”. She also never truly tries to understand why her son was moved down to begin with.

Maturity is important because one of the threads I most enjoyed in Nora Webster was the treatment of politics in the novel and its relationship to Nora’s changing perspective. Within the novel Nora grows up politically. Her husband was a significant figure within local politics with the Fianna Fáil party, but Nora herself lived in his shadow – I had the impression she hardly would have allowed herself to utter a thought contradicting his, even though the novel makes clear that on church matters she was more progressive than he, for example.

Politics, for a woman at home in a happy enough marriage, can sometimes arrive dulled. For a widow forced to take up work, it’s harder to avoid. Nora’s interest in her widow’s pension makes her aware of the finance minister responsible for her. Her work brings her into contact with the Haves, in the form of the Gibney family, and the Have-Nots, in the form of their workers. By working in the office of the Gibney daughter, Elizabeth, and through an acquaintance with her mother (who married into the family from a background closer to Nora’s), Nora’s position seems to be one aligned with an unassuming, unaware privilege.

Instead, however, Nora comes to shift towards the workers instead. Politics in Nora Webster is “elsewhere” but still available for those with eyes to see. In plain language: it’s on the telly. Just as in Marilynne Robinson’s Home, where the Civil Rights period comes to small town Iowa through a new television, in Nora Webster the early stages of The Troubles come to her through her own. But who notices besides her? At work it is only a lorry driver who responds to the violence of the British in Northern Ireland in an appropriate manner – “The baton charge on Saturday was serious. They were marching for civil rights. They were on their own streets. I am telling you now that is a disgrace”. Nobody else even seems to notice it.

Ultimately, Nora even joins the workers of the Gibneys’ business as they have a meeting to unionise. For Nora, this is an important milestone in her growing independence – “it was the idea that she had made a decision for herself, the idea that she had asked no one’s advice.” But what is interesting is that the narrative reflects a growing unease on Nora’s part. She’s shocked by how negatively the workers speak about the owners, and how positively about a colleague that Nora had not got on well with. Though Nora does end up joining the union, this long central chapter does not end there, but shows the reaction of the Gibneys when they find their employees have suddenly decided to unionise. While Elizabeth reports humorously that one of the brothers is busy complaining about the “Bolsheviks”, the narrative focus briefly lingers upon the head of the family, who “doesn’t want to see the place ever again. He has known some of the staff for forty years and some of them have been with the company even longer. They all stabbed him in the back.”

Industrial action is plenty more complicated than Tóibín can depict it here, but what’s important is Nora’s perspective. She sees the blindness of both the workers and of the owners, which gives her a kind of privileged position of maturity from which she could defuse any tension. I think this sense of clarity could have been explored much more in the book, for it is an area where Tóibín could really have emphasised Nora’s growth without simply falling back into these traditional narratives of overcoming grief or choosing an independent life outside of the memory of one’s husband. Sadly, this local politics is not pursued much further, and as for the country-level topics, Nora’s last word – where she declares that she would get a gun in her house if any of her children were shot at a march – rather suggests that the moral maturity I’ve spoken of is ultimately an illusion.

I think this is the most significant problem with the novel. Nora Webster is the story of a normal woman, quiet, self-effacing, in a time of relative unfreedom. Her opportunities are limited and perhaps we are supposed to praise her for whatever she does choose to do. But this crushing normality – her failures with her family, her mistakes – means that there is little in particular to like or be interested in about her. The opportunities for narratives that are more complex than just overcoming grief – through religion, through organised labour and a new perspective – are hinted at but ultimately never explored. Nora’s difficulties with her family are never resolved. She grows, in the sense of making friends and doing things, but not in the sense of moral growth or resolving deeper problems. We should be happy for her, but that doesn’t mean we should be happy to be with her.

In a certain sense, this novel is too long for what is ultimately just that standard narrative I named at the blog post’s start. It has that Chekhovian atmosphere of quiet failure about it, emphasised by that final image of Nora alone with her youngest son, in an emptied nest that is as much her own responsibility as that of her husband’s cancer. Too long in such a world is painful, rather than edifying. There were some very good moments – the final chapter is haunting (literally) and superb – but all this is not enough to unflatten for me what is ultimately a rather smooth book. I’m pained to write this since the whole reason I read Nora Webster was because, during a period of poor utilization at work, I watched quite a lot of Tóibín’s interviews and thought he was a lovely and very interesting fellow. I’m sure he is.

Temperamentally, however, I just didn’t like his book. Alas.

The Devil, Perhaps – James Hogg’s Confessions of a Justified Sinner

When I was a young teen, I attempted to make an agreement with God, which has given me a low hum of anxiety ever since. This is for the simple reason that I broke it, first in spirit and then eventually in practice. Now, I have no evidence that God did indeed agree to any deal, nor that He would exact the punishment I determined for myself for the breach. (Nor even that He exists to begin with.) Regardless, one consequence of the above is that since then my own innate sense of guilt has been bolstered by the feeling that I am well and truly metaphysically screwed, and that there may be no way out of the trap I both laid myself, and myself fell into, like an overconfident Mephistopheles. Bother though these feelings be, from them I do at least have an enhanced appreciation for tales involving the Faust myth and the idea of a soul eternally sold for earthly powers.

It is a long time since I’ve read such an interesting take on the whole topic as James Hogg’s 1824 novel The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner. The “justified sinner” of the title is a young man who is convinced that he is one of God’s elect, and thus removed from all moral rules – a position known as antinomianism. It’s in line with some interpretations of Calvinism / the Reformed Church, the faith popular in Scotland at the time. With such convictions, the central character begins a string of unreasonable murders while yet believing himself every bit God’s chosen son.

Based on this description, we might be tempted to dismiss the work as a bit of fun and nothing more. Arguing against a position few of us hold from an unpopular faith, its relevance to us today can only be so great. Even if we extend the central idea concerning morality to bring into play other contexts where we might declare ourselves above its rules, often without being aware of it, such as in the case of radical politics, it still does not seem something meriting a whole novel.

Why then does Hogg succeed? He succeeds because his work is much more complicated than this simple description suggests. A Justified Sinner has a fascinating split structure, with the same tale told twice from different perspectives, a blurring of fact and fiction, and a curious interplay of brazen obviousness and paralysing ambiguity. More than just an argument against extremism, it emerges as a work soaked in the anxieties of an age where the promised clarity of the Enlightenment was being challenged by the ambiguities of experience as people actually lived it.

The Story

The story goes something like this. The Laird of Dalcastle, George Colwan, inherits the family seat in Scotland in 1687. He marries a young woman of strong Calvinist convictions, who spends a single night with him before being so disgusted that she sets herself up in a different part of the estate, with only her friend, the priest Robert Wringham, for company. She gives birth to two sons, one certainly George’s and who takes his name, and one of more uncertain parentage, who is banished alongside her to live with Wringham, and takes the name Robert after him. Once older, the boys come into contact with one another, and in mysterious circumstances, George is murdered. His father dies of heartbreak, and Robert, born in wedlock and hence legitimate, takes over. Some time later, one of the elder George’s former lovers discovers young Robert and an accomplice to have been responsible for the murders and ties the new Laird up, only for him to flee just as the law is making its way to Dalcastle.

Anti-Antinomianism, then and now

The view of Christianity advanced by John Calvin, in Scotland and elsewhere, also known as Reformed Christianity, is easy for outsiders to criticise. It considers humans inherently sinful and that ascension to heaven is available to only a certain few, the “elect”. Importantly, however, election itself has nothing to do with moral merit or good works. It’s a choice God made at the beginning of time, so to speak, and you can’t convince Him otherwise. That means that if you are outside of the elect, or feel you are, you are basically trapped in despair. This idea is illustrated with terrible power by Jack Boughton, in Marilynne Robinson’s Gilead novels, who is convinced of his depravity and powerlessness to stop sinning. The result is that he continues to sin and loath himself, even though, as a human being, Robinson shows him to be as deserving of love as anyone. Perhaps Calvinism’s best popular defender these days is Robinson herself – her non-fiction explores Calvin’s legacy with greater depth and seriousness than I could. (Or indeed, than does Hogg here.)

For Hogg in his novel, the interest in Calvinism is in this idea of the elect and their relation to other obligations. If one is elected, then under certain interpretations of Calvinism, one can really do whatever one wants – because God chose you for election anyway, knowing this. The practical tension that the younger Robert faces is that he has “doubts, that, chosen as he knew he was from all eternity, still it might be possible for him to commit acts that would exclude him from the limits of the covenant.” Unfortunately, he has an accomplice or double or devil for a guide – a being calling itself Gil-Martin. As we learn in the second section of A Justified Sinner, this man is ready and waiting to convince Robert to kill whenever he starts with his worries again. If one is serving God, and one must be as one of the elect, then one can do anything one deems necessary because one can be sure it will be in God’s own service. Including, of course, murder.

It is tempting to laugh at such ideas, which are not the standard view in Calvinism, but we encounter people setting themselves outside of consistent moral rules almost every day. Religions are full of hypocrites, but so too are the irreligious, whose behaviour is conditioned by considerations of purity, something we see all too often in our decaying political discourse, especially on the internet. As soon as we learn someone is outside of our political group, we excuse ourselves of the responsibility of treating them as fully human and with the kindness and consideration we would someone of our own group. We dismiss them, denigrate them. Heaven forbid we should encounter them online, for we will then go through their entire post history to find something that gives them away as an enemy. In A Justified Sinner, there is a direct parallel in young Robert asking the older Robert about the spiritual qualities of a man he plans to murder to find the “gotcha” that proves it’s right to end his life.

The Novel’s Criticism of Antinomianism

If the criticism of antinomianism were only the dead that dot the novel’s pages, A Justified Sinner would be preaching to the converted, as I imagine the majority of its readers have never seriously contemplated murdering anyone. Yet the novel does much more than that in arguments against extremism, which does much to extend its interest today. The first way it does this is its emphasis on human fallibility through the courts and the priests, because for all young Robert’s interest in heavenly justice, the novel he inhabits is much more concerned with justice of an earthly sort. Among other situations, young Robert and George end up in court after a fight, there’s an investigation into George’s murder, and the elder George’s lover must disclaim knowledge of some stolen goods to save another woman’s life.

Each of these situations puts a crack in our idea of justice as a kind of idol. In the first, “the sheriff was a Whig,” and we hear that though it is “well known how differently the people of the present day, in Scotland, view the cases of their own party-men, and those of opposite political principles”, the situation at the time of the narrative was still worse. In the second case, the wrong man, a friend of George’s, is convicted of his murder, with contrary evidence being discounted, while in the third case, the pursuit of legal truth has to be neglected for the pursuit of moral truth and the discovery of Robert’s true purposes.

In a similar way, the treatment of religious discourse is such that we come to doubt the reliability of those who represent it. The priest Robert is a nasty man, more ready to “doom all that were aliens from God to destruction” than to wish them well, for example. And whenever the younger Robert doubts his obligation to murder, Gil-Martin always has a counterargument using scripture to get him back on track. Jesus himself came “with a sword”, so why shouldn’t young Robert? Alas, the Bible, being a big book, provides plenty of opportunities for crafting a more violent set of obligations upon Christians than we prefer to see these days.

One final point that is as obvious to me as it is impossible to consider for the younger Robert – how on earth does someone know they are one of the elect? In the younger Robert’s case, the only evidence is that his own probable father declares he is. But how can the priest be sure? We need not doubt the idea of election or the religious truth of Calvinism to doubt that it is practically possible to establish who is elected, and who is not. If we can’t trust authorities we have to trust our own consciences. This seems to be what A Justified Sinner is getting at, morally. Even young Robert, led astray by the devil, has one of those.

Narration and the Search for Truth

A Justified Sinner thus makes an argument against extremism first through its murders, then through its demonstration of the fallibility of scriptural interpretation and court justice. But where the book is most fascinating is at a still more fundamental level – the level of narration and structure themselves. This is because the entire book’s structure is itself an argument about the elusiveness of truth and hence an argument for moderation and carefulness.

A Justified Sinner is broken up into two main parts, with a final section tying them together. The first version of the story is “the editor’s narrative”, and details the version of the story that they could find from “history” and “tradition”. As a narrative, it covers the Story section earlier in this post. The narrator is largely a background presence, but his judgement against “the rage of fanaticism” of the events comes forth above all in his language. This is hard to miss – A Justified Sinner is at times anything but a subtle book. Young Robert is like a “demon”, a “devilish-looking youth” with a “malignant eye”. The narrator never says outright that either Robert or his familiar are devils, but they may as well do.

It’s not an ambiguous book, might be our conclusion from the first part of the work. But then the second section, the “Confessions”, begins, and things become a lot stranger. For here, the narrator is young Robert himself. He is convinced that he is guilty of no evil at all, and that what he did he did “in the faith of the promises, and justification by grace.” Through his condemnation of his brother (“ungodly and reprobate”) and father, and his black and white thinking, Robert’s narration provides a mirroring of the editor’s while relating many of the same events. Both, in their biases, cannot be true reflections of the world. By making the biases so obvious, it seems in fact that the text wants to make clear that neither is a true reflection.

The book does more than place two unambiguous texts against one another, for in Robert’s telling there’s also the problem of Gil-Martin. This creature, who has the ability to shapeshift, meets young Robert on the very morning when the priest has declared him one of the elect. The text allows a certain amount of uncertainty about who Gil-Martin really is, indeed whether he really exists at all beyond Robert’s mind: “I was a being incomprehensible to myself. Either I had a second self, who transacted business in my likeness, or else my body was at times possessed by a spirit over which it had no control, and of whose actions my own soul was wholly unconscious”.  

The overall result is that the narration is both real and unreal, both obvious and totally obfuscated at different moments. Robert is the subjectivity that becomes increasingly deranged, while the narrator is the attempt at objectivity that never quite works in spite of its best efforts. A Justified Sinner even contains a real letter from Hogg himself and features him as a minor character. It seems real, but it is so far from containing a simple truth that the only argument we can get from the text is that things will never be as certain as we want them to be. This, in turn, becomes an argument for moderation.

A Romantic Reaction

This line of method and argumentation also places A Justified Sinner within the context of other Romantic works. While the bulk of the novel is set in the early years of the 18th century and deals, indirectly, with a climate of significant religious tensions in Scotland at the time, its real thematic interests are Romantic. Specifically, they are anti-Enlightenment.

A Justified Sinner shares with writers like the German E.T.A. Hoffmann an engagement with the strangeness of perception. In Hoffmann’s Sandmann, a work full of looking-glasses and different perspectives – in this case, an epistolary section and a more impersonal narrative section – there is also a man who goes mad and acts violently out of a personal conviction. The anxiety as a whole likely leads back to a mixture of Kant and the Terror in France, where, in the latter case, the idea that all could be made rational led only to the guillotine. In A Justified Sinner, we have the sensible young George, who tries to reason with his brother and make peace with him, pitted against the thoroughly irrational Robert.

There are dark forces in the subconscious, and in the world itself. This was one key Romantic idea, as was the idea of the sublimity of subjective vision of the sort that Robert’s attitude embodies. In A Justified Sinner, the forces of unreason are stronger – first because Robert kills George, and then because he is driven mad himself. (More mad than mere murder). “Unreason”, though, has perhaps more negativity than what we really see here. What the novel suggests is just that there are forces beyond reason at play in the world, for good and for ill. The former is not too obvious unless we consider the work as a whole. In the final section, we return to the editor’s narrative to hear how he came across Robert’s Confessions. These were, we learn, miraculously preserved alongside his body in the grave of his eventual suicide.

In other words, God has intervened to bring us the anti-extremist message of this work. There’s a further irony, a further mystery. If God did do this, then perhaps the younger Robert was right all along – his life was serving God in an indirect way, because through A Justified Sinner we receive a text that reminds us of our obligations to follow His commandments. Whether this is the right interpretation, we shall never know – as with the rest of the book, it’s shrouded in the fog of mystery.

Conclusion

It’s by no means a perfect work, is Hogg’s. The language and characterisation, in particular, is at times so poor that I myself could have written it. (I learned since that Hogg had a thing against editing his works owing to a belief that he was a genius – I have taken this to heart as a warning). But the ideas here, the innovations of structure and narrative, make this a fine work to study, all the same. Plus, as a Scot myself who has barely read a thing by his fellow countrymen, it was a good place to start. Any other recommendations beyond Burns are welcome in the comments.