I keep returning to inter-war Britain. One novel just leads to another. Time, I thought, to drag myself away, so I accepted a recommendation of Willa Cather. Inter-war America instead.
The professor actually has two houses – the old one is ugly, inconvenient, cramped, the home of his work and family; the new one he has had built with a literary prize for his histories should be a great improvement. But he cannot bear to move completely into the new house; he returns to the old house, with its dangerous stove, to continue his work. In the same way the whole narrative shuttles between the surface story and something else beneath. The novel’s structure is as higgledy-piggledy as the house: for example, the narrative dwells on domestic interiors and almost phenomenological detail of the professor’s head (he’s called St Peter BTW) or his wife’s long upper lip, but skims lightly over their mutual regrets about what their marriage has become. And yet . . . stair carpets and beards are more visible than occasional mild sadness.
Quite what is beneath the surface sets my mind buzzing. His explanation of metonymy to Augusta can’t be accidental. There are opposites: Rosamond’s two suitors: Tom Outland (oh, the names) – poor, brilliant, sensitive, attached to the American landscape and its pre-European history – and Louie Marsellus – thrusting, loud, generous, well-meaning and quite definitely a city man. Honest piety and worldly delight. Scholarship vs getting students through exams. The professor’s French-style walled garden and the New Mexico mesa. The clear air under the sun that Tom Outland exults in and the smoking stove in the professor’s attic; both are places of retreat and study for the men.
The novel grew on me as I read further. So much is left hanging (as in real life), corresponding perhaps to the way that St Peter remembers and dwells on events. How much has St Peter idealised Outland? Had Outland courted Kitty unbeknownst to St Peter? (Names again! I noted the worldly “Rosamond”, but I’ve just realised that her sister’s pet name suggests a fireside creature.) Roddy has vanished, Crane is bringing a lawsuit.
The novel is in three parts: the professor’s life in the university town, expansively if obliquely told; a first-person account by Outland as he explores a long-abandoned native American village in New Mexico; and then back to the professor as, in the space of a few pages, he has what would now be called a mid-life crisis, is convinced (despite good health) that he is near death, cannot bear the thought of living again with his family, almost dies, and then has a quick change of heart after a few words with a religious, stoical seamstress. Just like that.
And yet, writing the above and re-reading some passages, my irritation with the ending begins to fade. The sudden shift in the narrative reflects the professor’s breakdown. He is put back together again but is no longer whole. He has lived for intellectual pursuits, love, delight, interest, and has avoided “the taste of bitter herbs . . . the bloomless side of life”. Henceforth that may be how he has to live. The Book of Ecclesiastes comes to mind: vanity, toil, “under the sun”.





















