Chapter 27 floating on the surface

There is much to talk about. "What are you afraid of her?" Flora asked, her heavy body lying on top of Howard, her breasts in front of his face. "I think," Howard said, "we're competing in the same field, and we're pretty much on par. That makes sense. Her role is still bounded by mine, and it's very constrained. That's holding her back, so She felt compelled to subvert me, destroy me from the inside." Ferrola said, "Are you comfortable? I'm not crushing too much, am I?" "No," Howard said. "How to destroy you?" asked Flora. "She's going to find a weakness in me," Howard said. "She's trying to convince herself that I'm a liar." "You have lovely breasts, Howard," Flora said. "Your too, Flora," Howard said. "Are you a liar?" Flora asked. "I don't think so," Howard said, "not any worse than anybody else. I just had a passion to get something done, to make sense out of chaos. She saw it as fashionable activism. "Oh, Howard," Flora said, "she's smarter than I thought. Has she got any sex?" "I think so," Howard said, "can you move it? It hurts me." ’” Flora slid off of him and lay down beside him.There they lay, facing the ceiling of her white apartment. "Don't you know?" Flora asked. "Don't you want to find out?" "No," said Howard. "You're not curious enough," Flora said. "There's a living mind waiting to be studied, and you're not interested. No wonder she's trying to destroy you." "We're all for going our separate ways," said Howard. "Put the sheet on," Flora said. "You're sweating, that's what you get with a cold. You're not parting, anyway." "No, it's not, but we don't trust each other." "Ah, yes ,” Flora said.She turned to look at him, her huge right breast fell on him, with a puzzled expression on her face, "Isn't that the definition of marriage?"

Malcolm Bradbury, The Historic Man (1975) I suggested earlier (in Section IX) that the novel is unrivaled among the forms of narrative literature in displaying subjectivity.The earliest English novels - Defoe's, Richardson's Pamela - used diaries and letters to describe the inner lives of their characters with unprecedented realism.The trend of the genre, at least up to Joyce and Proust, can be seen as an ever-increasing and nuanced exploration of consciousness.So when a novelist describes only the surface of human behavior, we conclude, with surprise, concern, and perhaps unease, that his work lacks psychological depth, even if we don't immediately see why.

Malcolm Bradbury's The Historic Man is such a novel.It is about a sociology lecturer who has just written a book, "The Failure of Privacy," which expounds the thesis that "there is no longer an individual self."Howard Koch argues that the self is an obsolete bourgeois concept, that the individual person is nothing more than a conditioned bundle of nerves, and that the only way out is to identify with the drama of history (with the help of Marxist sociology) and connect with cooperation.By floating on the surface of actions and circumstances, the novel's discourse parodies this feeble and anti-humanist philosophy of life in a way that seems to satirize it without privileging the reader. Highly condemn or abandon it.The story is mainly narrated from Howard's point of view, that is to say, he is present in nearly all the events described.Nevertheless, the narrative itself does not give us access to his inner thoughts, so we cannot judge his motives.The same is true of other characters, including Cork's opponents.

This novel is composed of description and dialogue.The description never tires of focusing on the surface of things—the decor of Cork's houses, the dilapidated dehumanizing buildings on campus, the extroverted demeanor of students and staff in seminars, committees, and parties.The language used to narrate the dialogue between the characters is plain and objective, neither explaining the introspection or explanation of the characters, nor the author’s comments, just a simple dialogue prompt "he/she asked/said" without any adverbs, without any transformation, Not even a pause between words.The present tense is used in the narrative tense, which further strengthens its "no depth." The past tense is used in traditional narratives, implying that the narrator understands the whole story and can make a comprehensive judgment.In this novel, the narrative discourse passively follows the actions of the characters in the novel, ignorant of the future.

The effect of this technique—both comedic and heart-pounding—is especially evident in the descriptions of sex scenes.In such a scene, the reader generally expects to read an introspective account of the emotions and feelings of at least one of the participants.In the passage excerpted here, Howard Koch lies in bed with his colleague Flora Bennifer, who "likes to sleep with men in troubled marriages, and they have a lot to talk about because they Just coming out of the complicated family politics that Flora specializes in." They were talking about Howard's relationship with his wife, Barbara.

There is of course an inherent comedy in the idea of ​​having sex with a lover for the sake of talking about, and especially talking about, the marriage of a lover, as does the stark contrast between the close physical contact of a man and a woman and the abstract intellectuality of their conversation. Intrinsic comedy.However, the incongruity in which the dialogue alternates between the flesh and the sanity, the trivial and the weird, is more than just comic.Howard addresses the novel's central problem when he says that his wife is trying to convince herself that he has no real talent and is a liar.Originally, Flora seemed to be dodging the question by making love, "Your breasts are lovely, Howard." He replied, "Your breasts, too, Flora." The conversation was interesting, but who pays for the joke cost?We must make our own judgments, as we do on larger matters.Is Howard a liar?Is his passion to "make something happen" a genuine one, or is it a show of energy in a world of moral entropy?Inner descriptions, which could help with such problems, are absent here, and the burden of explanation falls on the reader.

The novel was considered by many to be difficult to review, difficult to provide an unmistakable guideline in evaluating its characters, and unsettling to read.But all of this is undoubtedly the source of its charm and appeal.In this respect it can be compared with the BBC television adaptation of the novel.The script written by Christopher Hampton is very faithful, the actors and director are well chosen, and the performances are also very good.Anthony Shearer is amazing as Howard Coker - but, as an actor, he had to make his own interpretation of the role, clearly playing him as a scumbag who manipulates and exploits others for his own advancement .In this way, the TV series lightens the burden of interpretation, while the novel places it firmly in the reader's lap.In a way, TV series, while very enjoyable, are not as challenging as books. (It must also be said that during the performance of the scene excerpted here, the wit was overlooked in favor of "Flora Bennifer's beautiful bosom" which distracted attention.)