Loving by Henry Green

This novel was #89 on the Modern Library Top 100 and also included in the Time Top 100. In the introduction to the edition I read, the writer John Updike praises Green for his "surrender of self, this submersion of opinions and personality in the intensity of life itself...." Updike also quotes other notable writers who admired Green: Elizabeth Bowen and W.H. Auden. So I expected to really like this book. And I was disappointed.

Loving takes place in an Irish manor house during World War II, and concerns the doings of a group of servants, mostly during a time when the employer is not present. They fall in love, gossip about their employers, bicker and fight with each other, and express their fears of an invasion by the Germans and of the IRA (they are English, except for one). The central character, Charley Raunce, reveals himself to be a devoted son and lover, but also a bit of a petty thief and liar. Most of the other servants also see no shame in pilfering small bits and pieces from their employer and some frequently "take to their beds," knowing that the wartime makes it almost impossible to obtain new English servants. They are, in short, much like a group of workers in an office today, who have some admirable qualities, but who see no harm in taking home office supplies, fudging time sheets, and "playing sick" when they feel like taking a break. The only character to seem idealistic and somewhat noble is the youngest one, barely 18.

There is much mention of peacocks (meant to symbolize the useless upper class???), and the ending is ambiguous and abrupt. I felt the author was saying, almost in mockery: "You want a happy ending--well here it is." Some parts were very funny; for example, the old governess tells her charges a pretty story about a baby dove while the children watch actual doves fighting and copulating.

When my opinion of a book differs from that of actual literary critics, I generally assume I missed something. In this case, I believe the difference in opinion comes from the difference in the way a working writer or critic reads a book from the way the general reader reads a book. (Does that make any sense?) This book is about 80 percent dialogue, and it is so well done and natural sounding that it could be transcripts of tape recordings. I'm sure authors who have labored over writing dialogue really admire this skill. But Green does not edit his dialogue to advance a plot--he includes every little inconsequential remark and the roundabout way people in actual conversations have of getting to their point, even the way they sometimes lose track of what the point of the remark was in the first place. The author provides no clues or directions as to what the characters are actually feeling; the very trait Updike praises, Green's "submersion of opinions and personality," is the trait that made this book less than enjoyable for me. I can admire the author's skill greatly while not liking the book very much.

Writing these non-scholarly reviews is very helpful to me, because I actually think about a book after I have read it, trying to analyze my reaction so that I can try to convey it. Sometimes this means that I realize the book really wasn't that well done, but that I just liked the story. Sometimes this means that I discover that maybe I appreciated the book more than I had thought. So I say, "Well done, Henry Green, but I guess I don't really want people revealed this fully. It's discouraging, and I want to really believe in the happy ending."