Not Loving Loving

A lot of novels begin in media res, and I have gotten quite comfortable with being confused for a number of pages, if not a number of chapters. When the confusion lasts longer than I would like, I sometimes read the forward or introduction if my edition comes with one. My edition of Henry Green's Loving comes with an introduction by John Updike, and I availed myself of it after stumbling through the first ten pages of the novel. I recharged my battery after reading that "Green, to me, is so good a writer, such a revealer of what English prose fiction can do in this century, that I can launch myself upon this piece of homage and introduction only by falling into some sort of imitation of that liberatingly ingenuous voice, that voice so full of other voices, its own interpolations amid the matchless dialogue twisted and tremulous with a precision that kept the softness of groping, of sensation, of living." Wow, that sounds good!

But I did not find it to be as exhilarating as Updike. It took me a quarter of the book to figure out who was who, and another quarter to feel comfortable with the cast of characters. Then I spent the last half trying to figure out why I was reading the book at all. The uniqueness of Green's voice was lost on me, but I did find his skill at dialogue most impressive. He had many scene transitions that were sharp and clever. And he had a few descriptions that were striking and poetic. But those moments of admiration were moments, disparate and free-floating, unanchored to any plot or theme that I could follow. Summaries of the novel focus on the division of the masters and their servants and on the characters raiding each others turf as the warring nations in Europe simultaneously war with each other, but to say that that is what this novel is about does not ring true for me. The servants gossiped and spied on each other, but nothing about it felt like it was echoing the fighting happening overseas for the characters.

In the end, it's Raunce's story above all others. He is promoted to Butler, falls in love with Edith, and in the end the two elope. There are some power struggles, but nothing is ever really on the line. There could not be said to be any hills or valleys in the story. It is telling that Green avoids any chapters, because chapters suggest a rhythm that I found the novel lacking. So in the end I feel like I didn't understand the novel at all. And my brief search through the interwebz did not shine any light on it. Here is a novelist admired by many, and a novel that has made it not only on this top-100 list but on several others as well. So I just want to understand why.

One of the things that I like about reading from a top-100 list is that I can assume that what I am reading is good or ground-breaking in its own way. When a book takes an odd turn or does something that I would never expect, I can assume that the author had a reason for doing so, that doing so is part of his or her very point. I don't expect all the novels to be gripping or to be great in every category (character, plot, pacing, writing, etc.), but I do expect each novel to be doing one of two things: Giving me a good yarn or saying something about the world we live in. The good yarn I can do without if the characters and world portrayed are vibrant and absorbing, which they are indeed in this novel. But I can't say that this novel is saying anything about anything.

So there it is. It's not the worst book I've read. It's not the lamest book I've read. It's not the most confusing book I've read. I just don't get it. So if anyone out there can enlighten me, please do!