Tag: Thomas Bernhard

Dragging Myself Through Beckett’s Molloy

It’s probably fair to say I dragged myself through Molloy with only the occasional moment of more willing crawling. Samuel Beckett, perhaps, would have approved. This novel, his work as a whole, is full of pained movement that seems only one kick away from stillness. At school I studied Waiting for Godot and Endgame, two plays that I loved (eventually), but Beckett’s prose has always been both intimidating and unenticing. In Molloy we have big black brutal blocks of text with nary a paragraph break. I was hardly going to rush to read this, given I knew only to expect death and misery in what I did read. What is strange is that Beckett also wrote during his career its polar opposite, formally speaking: tiny fragments so fragmentary I could get nowhere at all in them, where even a single sentence seemed something so primordially bare that comprehension eluded me.

Regardless of these varied torments, I felt I had to make a sustained attack upon his prose. There are many good books I still have to read, of course, but always nudging me for Beckett was the awkward fact that many authors I really like – Jon Fosse and Thomas Bernhard, for example – are often claimed by critics as being his inheritors. And so, I tried again. “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better” – so does Sam put it in his late story “Worstwood Ho”. If I’ve failed, this time it’ll at least be a failure of interpretation, rather than a failure to get past the first page.

Eventually I felt I was getting something out of the work. But rather than try to summarise a book that is full of nonsense (Molloy spends several pages working out the optimal sequence for transferring sixteen stones between his four pockets and one mouth, to give one example), it makes more sense to note the path into meaningfulness, or at least the possibility of meaning, that I found most helpful, and reflect upon the relationship between the text I’ve read and the authors following him that I love.

Chasing

I mentioned movement at the beginning, and movement is maybe the best way into forming an understanding of Molloy, especially as it relates to the more accessible and well-known Godot. The plot of Molloy concerns two people, Molloy and Moran, each the narrator and author (both are writing reports) of their equally-sized parts. The first man is looking for his mother’s apartment, while the second man is seeking the first. Whereas Estragon and Vladimir in the play are tasked with waiting for someone, Molloy and Moran are tasked with finding someone – Molloy by himself, Moran by a figure called Youdi via his messenger Gaber. Molloy gets distracted often in his quest, and has experiences like getting arrested, running over a dog, and possibly murdering a man. Moran is more driven, if not for that any more successful. He is accompanied by his son, but though his narrative and voice are distinct, there are many similarities with Molloy’s path, including the talk of bicycles, a murder, and the decay of the body and mind.

Movement towards a goal, as opposed to waiting at an appointed point. These are not so different as they seem. In both cases Beckett’s tales are readable as a kind of allegory. Moran is instructed to find Molloy, but quickly forgets what he’s to do when he meets him – still, he trusts his instructions on faith. Just as Vladimir and Estragon are informed about Godot by a boy, Moran doesn’t hear from Youdi directly but via Gaber. These names are all richly interpretable. Gaber is Giver in German, but I also noticed it sounded like the archangel Gabriel. Youdi, as an invisible presence giving orders, reminded me of Yahweh, with whom he shares a syllable count and first letter. If the waiting of Vladimir and Estragon resembles that of the early Christians who believed the end of the world was about to arrive if only they waited a little longer, I thought there was something similarly religious in the shape of Moran’s quest in particular. Travelling with his son, and with a marked faith to his narration and cruelty to his action, I thought of the Binding of Isaac. In other words, the novel’s central dynamic and naming feels religious without ever being explicitly so, in the way that might make us feel comfortable resting upon such a view and ceasing any further enquiry.

Yet a simple allegory this is not, no more than is Godot. One topic that complicates matters is that of something close to movement: the body itself. Both Molloy and Moran’s bodies are in decay. Beckett might say with a wry and considered smile that they are both on their last legs. Certainly that seems the case for Moran, whose legs stop working over the course of his section. Molloy’s hardly seemed to work to begin with – he traverses the earth with a combination of crutches and a bicycle, something I could only imagine with some difficulty. No matter the damage, however, the bodies keep going. We could relate this back to the idea of faith by saying this is proof of how determined the characters are to honour their commitments – to one’s mother, to Youdi. But there’s too much humour in the writing to make this interpretation a comfortable one. Molloy ends his story crawling on the floor, before accidentally falling into a ditch; at one point, Moran gets on the floor and starts rolling about like a “cylinder”. Such moments are too funny to allow a straight-faced interpretation of the action. Their bodily faith seems too much like lunacy.

Beckett’s bodies try to reorientate the reader’s attention to the disregarded parts of existence. At one point Molloy sings the praises of the anus in more flowery language than I am prepared to quote; Moran, meanwhile, is obsessed by masturbation. It’s hard to think of the book as being about faith when that faith goes nowhere but the bodies with their earthiness are constantly present on the page. Then there is the matter that Moran, who is depicted as consciously religious, is guilty of all the crimes the religious normally are in the eyes of the confidently irreligious. He is full of pride (“I was short of sins” is a shockingly good way to tell us the exact opposite), he holds fast to that strain of Christian thought which demands “a horror of the body and all its functions”, yet is excited when he has a moment free from his son because it will allow him to masturbate. He also murders a stranger and drives away his son through repeated corporal punishment. Religion is certainly not the hero of this work, and devotion to the ideal seems hardly capable of taking its place.

Both Moran and Molloy’s sections of the story are bleak. Their bodies don’t work, their minds are in so much disorder, and all their strivings are unrewarded. Moran, for example, eventually, struggles home from his wanderings to find his animals dead. Both characters keep going because of a kind of faith, but the problem is that their leap of faith leads them not to land in God’s arms, but to fall straight into a ditch.

The question at this point is why read this book, or Malone Dies, or The Unnameable? The second novel of the Trilogy has the eponymous Malone stuck in what may be a hospital or a prison, telling stories to pass the time before he dies, only to get annoyed at his own work every-so-often and declare it “tedium”. This is an even more cramped space for narration than Molloy. At least with the first novel we could hope that something better might await Moran or Molloy – foolishly, perhaps, I thought perhaps their striving might be rewarded. With a man in bed, telling fictional stories and wishing he were dead, it’s even harder to find the traditional joys of fiction. If you don’t find Beckett funny, and I don’t find him quite funny enough, and you don’t love his language, which is often technically impressive and inventive (one favourite was “the unconquerable dark” which “licks the light” on a character’s face), the work is a hard sell. Indeed, it’s work. But now I can at least say I’ve managed the first two parts of the trilogy. That’s an achievement for before I die, anyway.

Two influences: Fosse and Bernhard

Besides thinking about religion and the body, I also found trying to compare Beckett with Jon Fosse and Thomas Bernhard a useful exercise to understand what Beckett might be trying to say, and why I found the others so much more enjoyable than I found him.

The main links between Fosse and Beckett concern ageing and madness and their associated changes to cognition. If only Molloy will monologue about his arsehole, excrement plays a role in both writers’ worlds. In the final section of Fosse’s Melancholy, for example, we could say the main narrative tension concerns the old woman Oline and her challenge to balance her need to pee with her promise to visit her dying brother. Something has gone wrong with her body, and she must resist it as long as she can. This is a similar dynamic to Molloy – the need to balance one’s duty to something higher with the demands of the body that carries us there. Another link, and related to this, is one of susceptibility. Both writers’ characters’ consciousnesses are very vulnerable to their external experiences, leading them to constantly lose track of what they are doing. Again, in Melancholy, there’s Lars, who in the scenes at the pub in Düsseldorf allows his idea of reality to be shaped by the words of his obviously-ill-intentioned fellow artists.

What separates these two writers, it seems to me, is their associated value judgements of these states. If the body is played for laughs in Beckett, it is also something decidedly important because it is the most human part of us. The “going on” of his characters is a physical going on, even if it’s just Molloy’s bizarre crutches-cum-bicycle hobbling. Fosse, I think, has less love of the body. Perhaps this is his (latent at the time of Melancholy, open by the time of Septology) Catholicism showing. Oline’s decay is something she has to avoid to remain connected to higher ideals, while Lars’ madness is just that – a sense that he has lost contact with something important and necessary for his art, something emphasised in the second section of the novel where he is in an asylum and more susceptible than ever to the faintest suggestions. In Septology, meanwhile, the second Asle is dying from alcoholism and hence unable to paint or, indeed, hold himself to life.

The things that Fosse values are beyond the body – our flesh and blood are necessary only insofar as they enable us to reach them. The overwhelming mystical experience of a world where the boundaries between past and present blur, as in Aliss at the Fire, or the presence of God in Septology – these are the things that really matter. If Beckett, in his bizarre and comic and even cruel way, celebrates the body, Fosse condemns it. But because Fosse’s vision has this religious and mystical angle instead of the bleak metaphysical emptiness of Beckett’s, I naturally prefer the former’s work, it being closer to my own leanings.

My second favourite who came, allegedly, from under Beckett’s overcoat is Thomas Bernhard. What links both writers is a certain cruelty. Beckett’s we see, for example, in Moran’s corporal punishment of his own son, which eventually leads him to flee, or in the pig butchery of the Lambert father in Malone Dies, who relishes in the creatures’ deaths. We might also perceive cruelty in Beckett’s treatment of his characters generally – the need to leave them immobile, bedbound, trapped. Bernhard’s cruelty is located differently: in his narration, in the bile of his narrators – the snobbery of the narrator of Woodcutters towards the artistic pretensions of the people at the party, or Roithamer’s hatred of his family in Correction. My preference here is again for the successor. Beckett’s narration bloodies his characters to build a bleak world, whereas Bernhard’s narrators bloody their world in order to big up themselves or what they like. If I am ultimately equivocal about Beckett’s bodies – the cruelty and bleakness balances the sense that they are important things – there’s no such sense of this with Bernhard.

Bernhard’s narrators are arrogant snobs. In Wittgenstein’s Nephew Bernhard describes a road trip across Austria just to get a copy of the Swiss newspaper, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, because he detests Austrian papers and wants to read a particular article in this one. Crazy, certainly, but also an indication of passion, even of love. We may not share his good taste but it’s hard not to respect the idea of good taste. Woodcutters is a broadside against the bourgeoisie, but through the figure of the actor at the dinner party there are moments when Bernhard seems to say “look here, here’s something real and important.” In other words, proper snobbery can only be possible where there is a real value of the things and people one looks down on – a negative judgement that implies an affirmation of what is absent. You don’t need to agree with him to value the very valuing.

There is no such vision in Beckett, where all and each seems so much dirt. In Bernhard we laugh at the narrators for being nincompoops, and we laugh at the objects of their rage. But in Beckett, the few things he seems to place some value upon – the body, the faithful adherence to a duty – are also mocked relentlessly. The result is that Beckett seems more negative than the all-denying Bernhard.

The Unnameable awaits. I’ll keep it waiting for the moment – I need a break from Beckett for now. I do not, however, regret reading either Molloy or Malone Dies. Fun they decidedly were not. But like many difficult books, trying to gather my thoughts together for a blog post has done a good bit to redeem them. I have a better sense of why Beckett has so many fans, even if I cannot yet call myself one of them, and I can see how his influence eventually wound up inspiring those whose works I more unequivocally love. There’s much more to the texts than I got out of them. The theme of identity, for example, is worth exploring. I could also, should also, probably do more close reading of the language itself. But in my defence, these are tasks for books we love. So poor Sam will miss out on the premium™ MAS blog post treatment for the moment.

For a long time, I was kept away from Beckett by a lack of a way in. I had seen so many titles and articles, indeed own Beckett’s Dying Words by Christopher Ricks (gifted, rather than bought), which told me how much love and pleasure he could offer to the initiated, but this only made me feel foolish for not having any success myself. I hope this post may nevertheless have helped you.

Meanwhile, if you, reader, are a Beckett fanatic, what helped you to get into him?

Correcting our Idea of Genius – Thomas Bernhard’s Correction

I am something of a Thomas Bernhard fanatic. After Woodcutters, the other Bernhard on this blog, I had a break until late 2023, when I read, in quick succession, Concrete, The Loser, Extinction, and Wittgenstein’s Nephew. Bernhard is a writer who is addictive in a quite unique way. His books are propelled by the bile and bitterness of his narrators and are inescapable thanks to their flowing, paragraphless prose, which offers no exit for someone looking to put them down and take a break. Entering Bernhard’s world means a total surrender to his aims and approach.

Correction, which I have now read for the second time, is to my mind the best Bernhard, and one of my favourite books altogether. It has a unique structure for the author, with two narrators, (even though one filters the other,) who take equal sides of the novel for themselves and who have slightly different voices. It also has the most interesting readerly experience, in that the novel’s journey is primarily one where we change our opinion about its central character, the genius scientist Roithamer, rather than one where something happens. All happening takes place before the book begins.

As with all Bernhard, the story itself is simple. Roithamer, a genius of sorts who works at Cambridge, upon the death of his parents inherits a lot of money and decides to use this money to build a Cone in the centre of the Kobernausser Forest in Austria for his sister to live in. Once the Cone is finished his sister dies, probably not of joy, and Roithamer then hangs himself. Our narrator, a friend of Roithamer’s, arrives at the house of a mutual friend, Hoeller, where Roithamer did much of his work on the Cone, to start putting Roithamer’s literary remains in order. The first part of Correction is an almost hagiographic portrayal of Roithamer by this friend; the second is Roithamer’s own literary remains, partly filtered. Chief among them is a manuscript entitled “About Altensam and everything connected with Altensam, with special attention to the Cone”.

In the first part of the book Roithamer is presented as a classical genius – what Bertrand Russell said of Wittgenstein is entirely appropriate here: “he was perhaps the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived, passionate, profound, intense, and dominating.” Roithamer is totally focused in a way that few of us ever are: “a topic he took up had to be thought through to the end”. The ultimate end, it turns out, is suicide, but before we get to suicide, this thinking is inspirational. Roithamer builds a Cone for habitation, something nobody has done before, and does so totally professionally, as the result of massive research and effort, and all this in the face of all manner of criticisms and accusations of madness.

He is also totally himself, totally dedicated. Quite frankly, I would rather be like this – more pedantic, more unbearable, more focused, than any of the human qualities those who know me would wish I had in greater quantities to balance out my already well-developed inhuman ones. Almost all I could think as I read these sections was how much I agreed with everything, how much I myself wanted to build my own Cone, or rather in my case a Cube, a white glass cube but also in the centre of a forest or failing that atop a cliff and far away from everything and everybody, my own “thought-chamber” where I would be able to work totally undisturbed and think better, cleaner, wiser thoughts than anywhere else. A place where I would experience the same joy as I had recently in the crypt at the cathedral in Münster, where I was alone beside silent stone.

We see Roithamer’s genius reflected in Bernhard’s prose. It flows, in long sentences, with a focus on choosing the right words. One of the things I love, you’ll have noticed, is Bernhard’s italics. He uses italics to make us read words and phrases we might otherwise pass over. Strangely, simple though it is, it works. But there are also the neologisms, obviously more brilliant in the original German where they can remain a single word, things like the “thought-chamber” above. This sentence-by-sentence genius can also be drawn out to the wider book, where we are constantly becoming more precise, more accurate, more truthful in our various assertions.

Here is an example. On page 1 we learn that Roithamer has killed himself. On page 53 we learn the location, on page 61 we learn the method, on page 81 we learn who found him. The whole book is structured like a spiral, as we constantly correct our initial view to be closer to the reality that once was. Spirals can mean madness, of course, the sense of one being trapped. But they can also be like drill bits, precisely what is needed to make a hole through something – some challenge or problem – otherwise impenetrable. That is the great test of genius and obsession – to fixate upon the right thing, not the wrong. I have a friend whose longtime obsession is Pokémon Pearl. I, fortunately, am more obsessed by books and terrible questions.

Our narrator’s obsession is Roithamer himself. This is, he notes, not exactly healthy. He describes being unable to think his own thoughts, because he is incarcerated “within Roithamer’s thought-prison – or Roithamer’s thought-dungeon.” This, naturally, makes the depiction of Roithamer we receive in the first part of the book slightly suspect. It also provides one of the novel’s mysteries. For the second part is a collection of Roithamer’s thoughts, as filtered through the narrator, yet the narrator is nowhere to be found. Even though he claims they were friends who went to school together, Roithamer doesn’t mention him once. In fact, Roithamer provides information that directly contradicts the narrator’s testimony. (The narrator claims Roithamer visited Stocket to see him, whereas Roithamer claims he visited Stocket to see an uncle).

The result of the narrator’s obsession is that he essentially goes mad, helped by working in quite literally the same room as Roithamer when he worked on the Cone. He is almost subsumed into Roithamer. Arguably, the second part of the book, where Roithamer’s voice is even more dominant, is just an extension of this – the narrator is totally crushed as a human being with any more existence than merely that of a bridge between the dead man’s words and our ears. Yet interestingly, his admiration for Roithamer, his Roithamer-obsession, is quite similar to what I felt.

One of the ways that Correction provides a journey for the reader is that it takes that attitude and forces us to amend it. Once we hear Roithamer’s voice, unvarnished, the genius becomes rather more petty than godly. “That extraordinary talent for life” which the narrator so praises becomes in practice rather pathetic. Roithamer absolutely hated his upbringing on the estate of Altensam. He spends page after page criticising his brothers, his father, his mother in particular. He describes endless squabbles and confrontations in which he himself is the instigator. For example, it was enough for him to return home from abroad and find that a barn had been painted to send him off on a rampage.

Given that, like a lot of people on the spectrum or whatever, Roithamer has a real dislike of hypocrisy, the sheer amount that we find in him soon comes to undermine him. Nobody understands him, yes, but he claims to have been observing his sister for years and years to create the ultimate habitation for her in the form of a Cone. Yet the result of this observation is a home so comically unsuited that she dies pretty much immediately. The repetitions of these problems, Roithamer’s total lack of growth, and indeed the way that his entire personality seems to have come from his upbringing even though he claims to despise it, all makes him look rather ridiculous. He cries about people who “never once seek a single cause of their unhappiness in themselves,” but it is he who is the first person who should consider this.

Bernhard is a hugely funny writer, which I have failed to indicate here thus far, but humour is another way that our thought-image of Roithamer becomes covered in cracks. As Roithamer’s own suicide approaches, he reels off a whole host of family members who have committed suicide, in a way that is too over-the-top to be upsetting. “…They shoot themselves, like my uncle, or they hang themselves, like my other uncle, or they throw themselves in front of a train, like my third uncle. … And didn’t our cousin, the only son of our third uncle, kill himself too, after he got married to a doctor’s daughter from Kirchdorf on the Krems.” When we learn that one of these people literally threw themselves down the air shaft of a cheese factory our sympathy struggles to break through the snort of laughter at these words.

In fact, it is humour that keeps Roithamer alive. At one point he visits the cliff off from which one of his relatives threw himself and finds himself considering following suit, “but suddenly, when this idea was at its most compelling, this idea seemed ridiculous to me, and I took myself out of there.” We laugh, perhaps, but three of Wittgenstein’s own brothers died to suicide, so these numbers are not the mad inflations they might seem. And Austria did, for a long time, have among the highest suicide rates in the world.

By the time Roithamer reaches the idea of suicide, the final “correction” for “our entire existence as a bottomless falsification and misrepresentation of our true nature”, we are already no longer with him, but watching him, rather sadly, as the madman that others did claim he was. One of the key elements of cone-building, as we learn, is “statics”, basically how to keep things from falling over. In the case of Roithamer, this provides a beautiful metaphor. He tips and tips as far as he can into his thoughts, and done well he can make huge advances (as he does by building the Cone) without getting to a point where he loses his balance and falls over. But in the book, he does go too far, and hence falls. We, watching, do not.

Another key idea, understandably, is the idea of correction itself. Roithamer writes his manuscript about his childhood and then corrects it, making it much smaller and completely different, then does so again, then finally kills himself. Correction, when I reflected on it, really has two meanings or uses. It can mean to take something false and replace it with what is true, as in the case of an incorrect mathematical summation, or it can mean to take what is largely true and make it more precise. Correction abounds in the latter, but believes it is a tale of the former. One of the mesmerising beauties of Bernhard’s prose is its precision-fanaticism. Whether it’s denying one word in favour of another, “master builder” instead of “architect”, or its deployment of a huge number of words and phrases to create a more accurate picture than one or two alone could do, Correction aims at precision in a way that others might be willing to stop and say this is “good enough.”

Precision-fanaticism is another phrase for perfectionism. Nowadays, self-help gurus are all about the need to be less of a perfectionist, and Correction provides a dramatization of why we should heed them. Roithamer, finding error and inaccuracy everywhere, ultimately gives up on his connection to the source of all error – existence itself. For us, it need not be so. We can stop at a given sentence, just as I can give up on a given blog post, and say that this is good enough. Could be better, but won’t be. Thus we live to fight another day.

As much as this book ultimately becomes a criticism of Roithamer, indeed even a correction to our idea of genius, it remains mysterious to me because I am unable to shake my love of the ideas it represents and the way it represents them. Much as once upon a time I wanted to be Ivan Karamazov or Levin, I would want to be Roithamer if I could. At least the Roithamer that is represented in the novel’s first half. The Roithamer of the second, with his pettiness and pointless arguments with his family members, I fear I already am.

Where Bernhard is normally so negative and cruel that we normally come out of his books looking for things that might actually be affirmed in life, in Correction I actually heard something truly beautiful and admirable – the sheer, single-minded dedication to an arbitrarily chosen idea that we are willing to stake our entire soul upon. Yes, it’s mad, but I want to build my Cone. Better that than not wanting anything at all, and sinking into the grim mediocrity that Bernhard hates so much.

Malina – Ingeborg Bachmann

It’s always hard to write about a book which you finish with a feeling that you have not understood anything. The Austrian writer Ingeborg Bachmann’s one and only novel Malina is not only awesome and exhilarating, but also pretty hard to make sense of. Taking as its subject the disintegration of a certain female artist’s mind, I spent most of the novel trying to determine what was real and what was not. I have now finished the novel and I am none the wiser. I have tried looking at the secondary criticism and am even less wise than before. It appears the main topic for the critics to discuss is whether half the characters even exist outside of the heroine’s head. You see what kind of fish we are dealing with here.

Malina is a weird book. It is probably the story of a woman whose attention is divided between two men, a Hungarian named Ivan and the eponymous Malina. My edition’s back cover calls it “part detective novel, part love story, part psychoanalytic case study”. Just that alone ought to grab our attention – we are not dealing with a novel that fits into the standard genres we might be used to. The narrator spends the first half of the book mostly with Ivan, then she has a breakdown and spends most of the second half of the book with Malina. Or we might say, in his power. One of Bachmann’s most famous utterances is that “fascism is the first thing in the relationship between a man and a woman”.

Fascism, fascism, fascism. Can we ever escape it, except by retreating cowardly into a past where it hasn’t been born yet? In Malina it lurks throughout the first act, only coming out into the open in the second. Malina is post-war German literature, but relatively subtle in its treatments of the past when compared to authors like Günter Grass. In fact, it reminded me a little bit of Thomas Bernhard’s Woodcutters. I later discovered that Bachmann had been a kind of mentor to Bernhard. He, in turn, had given her some of his distinctly offensive praise: “I loved Bachmann a great deal. She was a very intelligent woman. A strange combination, no? Most women are stupid but bearable, possibly even agreeable; intelligent too, but rarely.”

But we must get to the novel, there’s no hiding from it. What there is, is hiding from is our narrator’s past. “I don’t want to talk, it all upsets me, in my remembering.” From the moment Malina begins our narrator is three things – creative, intelligent, and mentally unwell. Unlike with Schnitzler’s Fräulein Else, which Malina has plenty in common with, here we don’t even start with a narrator we can trust. The opening section gives us “the cast” and descriptions of the narrator, Malina, and Ivan. But already we get a nudge that identity is a bit more complicated (a mess) than what we can easily write down. In the case of our narrator, “Official Austrian I.D. Eyes—br., Hair—blond; born in Klagenfurt”, is really not enough for us to go on.  We then hear that “the experts” have deemed her “still functional”, which the rest of our novel will test our credulity of.

And so, and so. The first section of the novel is entitled “Happy with Ivan”, which I believe to be a joke. For our narrator, Ivan appears a kind of saviour: “Against the decay and order, against life and against death, against accident, constant threats from the radio, the newspaper headlines all spreading the plague, against perfidy seeping down from upstairs or up from downstairs,”, she has Ivan. Ivan “is beginning to cure me”. But does Ivan care about our narrator? “How sad I am, and why doesn’t Ivan do anything about it?” Probably not. We are treated over the course of the novel to examples of “sentences”, shared between the two characters, as if they are reading off limited scripts. But our narrator notes that “we don’t have a single sentence about feelings.”

I live in Ivan.

I will not outlive Ivan.

The narrator’s mood swings between joy and terrible sadness, from paragraphed section to paragraphed section. At one point she gets excited about “infecting” the world with positive feelings – it always comes back to disease – but soon she is depressed again. Such mood swings do not make for fun reading. Nor does the disorientation that comes from these and other abrupt changes. The first time the narrator meets Ivan’s two young children, she is cold to them and they to her. The second time we hear that they meet, the situation is much changed, and they are more talkative. What are we missing? We ask in vain for some signposting, some sense even of time. It is not forthcoming.   

Malina is made up of short sections, often only a page or two long. Dialogue is hard to differentiate. Sometimes we get phone calls, which are jumbled up and with the ends of sentences missing. Our narrator spends a lot of time waiting for Ivan, and less time with him. In the first section, we have a fairy tale, we have snippets of stories or else reworkings of them, we have letters written and unwritten, we have an interview. All of this is inventive, and every new approach throws new light on the problem we are facing in Malina, of making sense of things and working out what’s what.

After a trip out of Vienna to see friends the narrator collapses, and the first section ends. Malina’s second part is one of the most horrific sequences I have ever read. In it, our narrator falls into her own mind, and we with her. Where the first part of the book kept her past hidden, with only the odd veiled references (she was put up against a wall and almost shot as a child), the second part introduces “my father”. A family, the thing we had missed before. But this is not her real family, or at least not necessarily so. The second part is a nightmarish hellscape of torture scenes and mental anguish, interspersed with dialogue (now clearly signposted, as in a play), between the narrator and Malina. The closest thing I imagine it compares to is being waterboarded. We go under the water and feel like we are drowning, and then our head is dragged out again for a brief gasp of air, only for the cycle to repeat.

Gas chambers, barbed wire, Siberian prison camps, incest, murder, child rape. I, not one for squeamishness, thought that this is one of the few books that could have done with a content warning. The narrator possibly has a real sister, Eleonore. She has possibly betrayed her father. She has possibly been raped by her father. She dies repeatedly, horribly. In the nightmares a constant feeling is one of exposure – she is filmed without her consent, or forced to stand on stage, or forced to strip naked. Her powerlessness is the overwhelming impression. At the same time, her powerlessness is also reflected in Malina’s growing influence over her “waking” life. These dialogue sections, which feel just as unhelpful as the dream sequences (Malina: What happened to her? Me: She died in a foreign land”), convey a transferring of agency. “Leave it to me”, Malina says. And what he means is – control over her whole life.

In the third section, we might think that things are back to normal. At least the dream sequences have ended. But my initial impression of the narrator, who says of herself that she’s always in a “state of disintegration or recomposition”, is that she has been lobotomised. Something is missing. Even less than before do we have a grasp on what time it is. She is interested in mailmen (as a concept). Her relationship with Ivan begins to crumble, and the snatches of phone conversations become still less informative. The narrator notices that signs of Ivan’s presence in her life are also disappearing, such as the pack of cigarettes he would leave on the table. Everything is falling apart; only Malina remains.

In “the theatre of my thoughts”, which may or may not be the outside world, the narrator tries to live. At a restaurant with Malina, she is decapitated. Malina goes from a slightly concerning controlling presence to an outright evil one when he begins urging the narrator to murder Ivan. “Kill him! Kill him!” But is this real? (“But am I really saying something?”). It is impossible to say. As the narrator’s mind continues its final losses of everything that allowed it to make sense of things, we are treated to no additional clarity.

And yet, the lack of clarity is itself a reality. If we say that the narrator simply went mad, then where does that leave Malina, who early on we learn “was destined to be my doom?” Madness can be aided and abetted by dark agents, and perhaps Malina’s suggestion that our narrator murders Ivan is not a figment of her imagination, but in fact him pushing her further and further into passivity and his control. All through the novel, our narrator is a passive being. She is desperate to control Ivan, but she has no power over him. Her dream sequences, like Kafka’s, show her being submissive to an entirely dominant father. The final sections have Malina be ascendent. Violence is a thread running through the novel. Whether it is the slap given to her as a schoolgirl by a boy as a prank, her father’s dream violence, to Malina’s real violence, our narrator is the victim of physical force.

Malina might be read as an attempt, a doomed one, to break out of this domination by others. And it is an attempt made using language. The fairy tale we are treated to early on in Malina is one of woman’s emancipation. Our narrator, who is an author like Bachmann, also reads in a way that leads her to a kind of freedom, or hope of it. She twice quotes Nietzsche’s famous aphorism, “He who has a Why to live for will bear almost any How”. The constructed-ness of Malina itself is a kind of scattergun attempt at finding a way of self-expression that works. We have letters, we have telephone calls, we have dialogues.

But with each of these, we have difficulties. The phone calls don’t go anywhere. The letters, whose recipients (yet again) may not actually exist, are not posted. Perhaps most intriguing is an interview with a journalist, where the narrator begins to express her thoughts on language.

“I will tell you a terrible secret: language is punishment. Language must encompass all things and in it, all things must again transpire according to guilt and the degree of guilt”.

This is an important statement. Germanists will be thinking about Arendt and Adorno and Celan and all the other thinkers and artists who struggled with what to do with German after the Second World War and who made similar pronouncements. And yet, “(signs of exhaustion in Herr Mühlbauer. Signs of my own exhaustion.)”. There is no engagement, the man shuts her down. The truth, which is a victim’s and a woman’s truth, has no place here. As is the case elsewhere in the novel, our narrator (ironically, good at writing), cannot express herself externally because the men do not allow her to.

Austria during the sixties was a bit of a mess with regards to its Nazi past. Bernhard’s Woodcutters deals with it obliquely, and Elfriede Jelinek’s horrid (but also impressive) Wonderful, Wonderful Times does so a little more directly. The interview is one example of an unwillingness to think about the past among certain members of the Viennese bourgeoisie. Another example comes at the end of the first part where the narrator goes on holiday to the Tyrol with some friends, where we have some Bernhard-esque social satire (albeit less funny). Here we have no “discussions,” “talking,” or “get-togethers,” but conversation, a dying species of weightless speaking at cross purposes, which permits proper digestion and maintains the good spirits of all.” Language itself, as in a Chekhov story, is manipulated by the controllers of discourse into being a tool for preventing discourse, leaving our narrator poised for her breakdown.

Malina is one of those novels that rewards reading carefully. It also frustrates, with its lack of clarity. Does Ivan exist, does Malina exist, or are they merely alter egos, facets of the narrator’s imagination let loose upon the world? We have to wean ourselves off the plot to enjoy the book. Instead, carried by Bachmann’s command of language, we need to focus on the ideas here instead. Why is it that our narrator cannot speak? Why are her relationships with the outside world always characterised by domination and submission?

Once we start asking these questions, the novel provides plenty of answers. It is the tortured and at times torturous account of the breakdown of a psyche, but that breakdown is not without its external factors. To go away thinking that this is just another novel about a psychotic woman is offensive and misses the point. This woman is trapped within a world that destroys her ability to speak and define herself and deprives her of any kind of authentic expression except her writing. Given all of that, how could she do anything other than go insane?

I really enjoyed Malina’s intelligence and inventiveness. It is not an easy book to read, and I can’t pretend I liked getting to the end not knowing what I had just read. But at the same time, here is a book that still has mysteries to unravel, and that demands I one day return to it. That can only be a good thing.