Clouds of Witness by Dorothy L. Sayers (1926)

‘Lord Peter Wimsey in the witness-box—very distressin’ to feelin’s of a brother. Duke of Denver in the dock—worse still. Dear me! We’l, I suppose one must have breakfast.’

‘Wimsey would be one of the finest detectives in England if he wasn’t lazy.’
(The opinion of his friend, Detective Parker, Chapter 2)

‘Well, well,’ he said, ‘there’s no accounting for a man like Cathcart, no accounting at all. Brought up in France, you know. Not at all like a straight-forward Englishman.’
(Colonel Marchbanks on damn foreigners!)

‘If only I’d been at Riddlesdale none of this would have happened. Of course, we all know that he wasn’t doing any harm, but we can’t expect the jurymen to understand that. The lower orders are so prejudiced.’
(The Dowager Duchess’s attitude)

Lord Peter was awake, and looked rather fagged, as though he had been sleuthing in his sleep.

‘I’m awfully sorry,’ said Parker. ‘Can’t think why I said that—rotten bad form—beg pardon, old man.’
(Comedy posh boys)

‘The Sherlock Holmes of the West End’
(Popular newspaper’s description of Wimsey)]

‘…a series of unheard-of coincidences…’
(Sir Impey aptly describes the plot)

‘In the majority of cases of this kind the evidence is confused, contradictory; here, however, the course of events is so clear, so coherent, that had we ourselves been present to see the drama unrolled before us, as before the all-seeing eye of God, we could hardly have a more vivid or a more accurate vision of that night’s adventures.’

Introduction

‘Clouds of Witness’ is the second Lord Peter Wimsey novel. It is longer than the first and even more convoluted. It has a long subtitle which reads: ‘The solution of the Riddlesdale mystery with a report of the trial of the Duke of Denver before the House of Lords for murder’ and it is just that.

Right at the start, there is a really long verbatim account of the inquest held on the death of one Captain Denis Cathcart which sets the whole story in motion. And right at the end of the narrative, the trial of Peter Wimsey’s brother, the sixteenth Duke of Denver, in the House of Lords (a duke can only be tried by a jury of his peers i.e. other lords) stretches over several chapters.

In this and other ways the Wimsey stories feel verbose and windy, littered with set pieces which are described at some length. Compare and contrast with her rival, Agatha Christie, whose works and prose style got steadily more pithy and focused.

Setup

Wimsey is 33. After the tribulations of the case described in book one, about the body in the bath, he went for a three month holiday on Corsica, living the simple life. He’s en route back to Blighty and has only just checked into a hotel in Paris, when his man servant, Bunter, reads the paper and discovers that his brother, Gerald, the 16th Duke of Denver, has been arrested for murder! Bunter books them onto the first flight leaving Paris for London.

On the flight they read a detailed account of the inquest, which allows Sayers to insert a detailed account of the events surrounding the alleged murder.

It’s a country house murder and also a closed circle murder, in the classic style. Gerald had invited half a dozen friends to a shooting lodge he’d hired for the summer (Riddlesdale Lodge). In the inquest these guests are called one by one to give their version of events but a fairly clear narrative emerges: one of the guests was a Captain Denis Cathcart who had been engaged for eight months to Gerald and Peter’s sister, Lady Mary ‘Polly’ Denver (five years younger than Peter).

All went well with the normal round of breakfast, walks, spot of shooting, big dinner etc until the night in question (Wednesday 13 October into Thursday 14 October). Late on this night the other guests overheard Gerald and Cathcart having a flaring row, Cathcart stomping off through the house’s french windows into the night and the pouring rain, while Gerald went up to his bedroom and banged his door in a fury, ignoring the couple of other chaps who’d come out into the hallway to ask him what all the fuss was about.

At the inquest Gerald explains that that evening he’d received a letter from an old chum from Oxford who’s now working out in Egypt, Tommy Freeborn. This Freeborn had only just read about Lady Mary’s engagement to Cathcart (he’s working as an engineer far up the Nile) and was writing to say that once, on holiday in Paris, he’d met this Cathcart and from others in his circle learned that he was notorious for cheating at cards. Now this might not bother you or me very much (I assume all card games are a cheat of a sort) but this accusation, in this posh class, was the greatest insult a man could receive, at this time.

So Gerald goes straight up to Cathcart’s bedroom, knocks, and is struck straightaway by Cathcart’s own distracted attitude and filthy mood. Quite obviously something is bothering him as well (what the something is, we will only learn right at the end of the book). Anyway, Gerald’s accusations about cheating trigger a rant from Cathcart who says he won’t stay under this roof another minute etc etc and storms down the landing, down the stairs, across the living room, through the french windows and out into the pouring rain, with Gerald yelling after him before storming back into his own bedroom and slamming the door.

So that’s part one of the scene. Next part is that in the wee small hours, about 3am, some people hear creaking of doors and footsteps and, at the inquest, Gerald admits, with huge implausibility, that he felt like going for a bit of a stroll, in the rain, at 3am.

This is important because the next thing the guests know there’s the sound of a gunshot and when several of them go downstairs, they find Gerald bending over a body just outside the french windows, a body which turns out to be Cathcart, shot through the lungs.

When the police arrive and do a search of the grounds they find a little way away, in a clearing, the revolver which shot Cathcart, a handkerchief and lots of blood. And it is Denver’s revolver which, he tells the cops, he usually keeps lying around in his desk drawer.

But here the inquest throws up contradictory information because the Lodge’s gamekeeper, John Hardraw, explicitly says he heard a shot about 10 to midnight, 3 hours before the one Lady Mary claims woke her up.

So did Wimsey’s angry brother shoot Colonel Cathcart dead? Why did the witnesses claim to have heard two different gunshots at widely separate times? And if Gerald didn’t do it, who did? And why?

Reading the detailed account of the inquest which conveys all these facts covers the time it takes Wimsey to fly from Paris to London, catch a train to wherever in the country this posh house is (Riddlesdale, nearest station Northallerton), get a taxi, and then make a dramatic entrance! Having read it all, Wimsey sums it up to the surprised house party guests in his best honking Bertie Wooster impersonation:

‘I say, Helen, old Gerald’s been an’ gone an’ done it this time, what?’

Developments

Evidence of a mystery man Parker and Wimsey thoroughly explore the grounds of the Lodge and come across evidence that a tall man broke into the grounds, probably shot Cathcart and for reasons unknown dragged his body up to the house before running back to the wall surrounding the estate, climbing up and over spiked railings where he cut himself and left half his belt snagged on the spike. In the shrubbery where the police found the gun, Wimsey notices a little cat-shaped piece of jewellery on the ground.

Motorcycle There are the tracks of a motorcycle and sidecar and, separately, a local vicar has reported to the police that his motorcycle plates have been stolen. Parker and Wimsey nickname this unknown man Number 10 on the basis of his large footprints.

Grider’s Hole and Mr Grimethorpe So Parker and Wimsey split up: Wimsey goes exploring the surrounding villages, in the course of which he visits a place called Grider’s Hole and comes across the extremely disagreeable Mr Grimethorpe who keeps bullies and dogs to guard his land and terrorises his (beautiful) wife and child. Why? What have they got to do with anything?

Paris Meanwhile, Parker travels to Paris to check out Cathcart’s flat – interviewing his concierge and neighbour in St. Honoré – interview his bank manager and review his accounts (which tell a familiar story of pre-war affluence which gradually declines during the war, until Cathcart reports generating income from unknown sources – gambling?).

But his breakthrough comes when he signs of sleuthing and goes to do some underwear shopping for his sad spinster sister and finds himself looking in the window of a jewellers shop and recognising the spitting image of the little cat jewellery they found in the ground of Riddlesdale Lodge.

He makes detailed enquiries within – Monsieur Briquet’s in the Rue de la Paix – and establishes that only 20 were made, and makes them go through their records till he establishes the one he’s interested in was bought in February, sold to an Englishman accompanied by a dazzling blonde. Now Parker knows from their background research on Cathcart that Lady Mary was in Paris at this exact time. Surely the Englishman who bought it for his girlfriend was Cathcart, and the girlfriend Lady Mary.

Back in London Wimsey and Parker are reunited, swap notes and generate new hypotheses for what might have happened on the fatal night. Then a) Wimsey goes off to see the Head of Scotland Yard while b) Parker waits for him. Two things happen:

Lady Mary confesses Parker’s wait stretches on and on and then the doorbell rings and he’s surprised at the arrival of Lady Mary arrives. For the past week or so she had taken to her bed at the Lodge claiming to be sick with a high temperature. So he’s very surprised to see her well and vehement. She gives a full confession to Parker leading up to the stunning revelation that she shot Cathcart – which he in fact refuses to believe, although she insists on it.

Wimsey is shot After his meeting with the Scotland Yard boss concludes, Peter is accosted by old friend Miss Tarrant, a loud Socialist, who hauls him off to the Soviet Club in Soho where, she says, there’s going to be a speech by Mr Coke, the Labour party leader, about converting the forces to communism. Over dinner there, there’s some light satire on contemporary literature, which namedrops Joyce and D.H. Lawrence, before Mary tells him all about a Mr Goyles, one of their leading young speakers, and goes on to make the revelation that this was the man Lady Mary was in a relationship with and all their friends expected them to get married. Wimsey is able to explain his side, which is he’d vaguely heard about all this while he was off at the war, but his family stepped in and broke up the match as completely unsuitable, which is why she became engaged to posh bounder Cathcart on the rebound.

At that moment Mr Goyles enters the club, Miss Tarrant spots him and goes over to introduce him. Wimsey notes that Goyles is tall and wearing a glove, maybe to hide an injured hand, so maybe he’s Number 10, the man whose traces in the grounds of Riddlesdale Lodge he and Parker detected.

As if to confirm his suspicions, Goyle takes a look in Wimsey’s direction, panics and bolts for the door of the club. Wimsey chases him out, and it turns into a chase through Soho alleyways, until Goyle turns and shoots Wimsey (in the shoulder). Wimsey is knocked sideways onto a nearby disused bedstead that’s outside a rag and bone shop and passes out.

Wimsey bounces back Next morning Wimsey is back in his Piccadilly apartment having spent the night in hospital (the Charing Cross Hospital) and been bandaged up and sedated. He’s feeling right as rain and holds court to Bunter, Parker, the Duchess (his rambling mother) and Lady Mary who now, finally, spills the beans. Mary (or Polly as Wimsey calls her) explains that 1) she had come to dislike Cathcart and had broken off the engagement; 2) on the night in question, she had made an arrangement to rendezvous with Goyle, elope and get married to him, she’d packed a bag and everything, which is why she was first on the scene of Gerald kneeling down over Cathcart’s body.

The gunshot she claimed she heard at 3am was pure fiction, made up on the spot to explain what she was doing out of bed, which was contradicted by everyone else at the inquest, her confusion and distress all explaining why she went back to bed and pretended to be ill (putting the thermometer in her hot water bottle when no-one was looking in order to fool the local doctor that she had a dangerous temperature, that kind of thing…)

Grimethorpe A big breakthrough in the story relates to the horrible domestic tyrant Grimethorpe. Wimsey had been puzzled why his wife emerged from the shadows of his dark kitchen when Grimethorpe went off to call his men and get his dogs set on Wimsey; his wife emerged terribly flustered and telling him to leave quickly, then changed her tune when she saw Wimsey in the lamplight, as if she initially mistook him for someone else. Now Wimsey speculates that Cathcart was having an affair with this lower class woman, that Grimethorpe had got wind of it – and broke into the grounds of Riddlesdale Lodge in order to kill Cathcart in revenge!!

This fits some of the facts: it renders both Goyle and Lady Mary (and Gerald, still languishing in prison awaiting trial) innocent of Cathcart’s murder. But can you see how contrived and awkward it is? Why would a man like Grimethorpe break in anywhere, why not confront Cathcart in full daylight somewhere, in one of the local villages, or make an official visit to the Lodge and humiliate him in front of all the other guests?

George Goyle’s story After the police put out an alert, Goyles was captured at Folkestone trying to leave the country and brought back to London. Wimsey, Parker and Mary go to interview him. His story is simple: he and Mary planned to elope, he told her to be ready at 3am in the grounds with a suitcase; it had to be that time because he was making a speech at a local Labour club and it would take a few hours to drive over. He broke into the Lodge grounds and was tiptoeing towards the house when he tripped over a body, feeling it, realised it was cold and dead. This panicked him, he turned and ran through the undergrowth and hoisted himself over the palings, cutting his hand and leaving his belt caught in the spikes, as Parker and Wimsey found.

So that is a believable version of events, although it puts Mary off Goyle for being such a coward (and for being so sullen and aggressive towards Wimsey who has graciously agreed not to pursue an action against him for shooting him), so that she formally returns his engagement ring.

Parker, Mary and Wimsey go on to lunch at the solicitor, Mr Murbles, where we have an extended description of the clever and successful barrister, Sir Impey Biggs in action. But the next step is for Wimsey to return to Yorkshire and do some more investigating of the horrible man Grimethrope, who they are all now suspecting of murdering Cathcart. They need a full confession in order to get Gerald off the hook…

In Yorkshire Wimsey and Bunter trawl the pubs of the market town nearest to Riddlesdale Lodge, namely Stapley. This takes a while, and includes comic portraits of various local yokel characters. Their aim is to build up an account of the movements of the horrible Mr Grimethorpe on the night of the murder, and it certainly becomes suspicious with Grimethorpe coming into town to do some business but then disappearing from his pub late at night, only to reappear in the early hours covered in mud, compatible with him having travelled to Riddlesdale, broken in, killed Cathcart in a struggle, and straggled back to his Strapley pub.

Groot They also learn of a man named Groot who claimed to see a man wandering over the fell late that night, so they decide to go an interview him and get a carter to give them a lift out to the track leading to Groot’s cottage.

The fog and the bog Basically they don’t get much out of this Groot, and decide to walk the not great distance to Grider’s Hole to confront Grimethorpe himself. What they hadn’t counted on is that they are no longer in Piccadilly – they are on a high fell in Yorkshire late on a November day. A thick fog suddenly descends, they get hopelessly lost and blunder into a bog where Wimsey gets trapped and starts to be sucked down. Bunter manager to carefully slide forward on solid tufts of grass and hold Wimsey arms as they both yell for help. Eventually out of the fog emerge three men who rescue them.

At Grimethorpe’s They turn out to Be Grimethorpe’s men who take him to the angry man’s house, who tries to turn them away, but his men point out the cops will clobber him if the men (Bunter and Wimsey) come a cropper, so they’re forced to take them in, clean and feed and give them a bed for the night, in fact Grimethorpe’s own bed in the marital bedroom.

The letter In the morning, while Bunter gets hot water to shave in from the kitchen, Wimsey idly takes a wad of paper stuffed in the sash of the window to stop it rattling, and is astonished to discover it is the missing letter from Tommy Freeborn. It can only possibly have gotten here if Gerald himself brought it here and used it as a window stopper.

Gerald has been there himself!! Hang on. Suddenly Wimsey sees the light. His brother Gerald was having an affair with Grimethorpe’s beautiful wife!!! That’s where he slipped out to on the night of the murder, that’s why he was coming back to the Lodge at 3am very suspiciously, that’s why he refuses to account for his movements: he is chivalrously protecting Mrs Grimethorpe (whose husband would murder her if he found out) as well as his own and his family’s reputation (Gerald is married, to Lady Helen (who no-one seems to like)).

Wimsey feverishly tries to persuade Mrs Grimethorpe to give evidence in Gerald’s trial but she is absolutely terrified for her life and at that moment Grimethorpe comes into the room, angry and suspicious as always.

So I think the reader now knows what happened: on the night in question:

  1. Gerald slipped out of the Lodge and across the moors to Gride’s Hole (two and a half miles away) where he had sex with Grimethorpe’s wife (!) taking advantage of the fact that Grimethorpe is away from home, staying the night in Stapley. When he tries to slip quietly into the Lodge he is astonished to trip over a corpse.
  2. Grimethorpe, strongly suspecting Gerald was sleeping with his wife, leaves the pub in Stapley and travels cross country to Riddesdale Lodge, breaks in and somehow confronts Cathcart, presumably mistaking him for Wimsey, and shoots him, panics and foots it back across country.
  3. Meanwhile, in a completely different storyline, young Goyles has arranged to elope with Lady Mary and she indeed comes down to the french windows with her suitcase packed but instead finds her brother kneeling over a dead body and, for a moment, thinks Gerald has killed Goyles – before she recovers and realises the body is Cathcart’s.

OK, but there are still holes, like: how did a revolver belonging to Gerald end up being used to shoot Cathcart? Grimethorpe had no access to it. So, how?

Gerald’s trial Bunter and Wimsey return to London and we are treated to an extended account of Gerald’s trial in the House of Lords (during which we learn it is set in the year 1920). In fact before that kicks off Wimsey has a revelation based on some old blotting paper he found in Gerald’s room which makes him race off to Paris, obviously something to do with Cathcart, who lived there – before returning breathlessly, hassling the American ambassador for an emergency visa to the States, and then, with mad implausibility, takes ship from Liverpool to America!

So we get a day of trial proceedings with various witnesses being cross-examined them, on I think the third day, the defence barrister, Sir Impey, asks for an adjournment because Wimsey has cabled to say he is flying back across the Atlantic with vital evidence! The press was already covering the trial of a duke, a great rarity, but now they go bananas about the mercy dash across the Atlantic with headlines like ‘Peer’s Son Flies Atlantic’, ‘Brother’s Devotion’, ‘Will Wimsey Be in Time?’

What evidence? What took him to Paris, then to America?

But while Wimsey is off gallivanting in New York, there’s a radical new development when Grimethorpe’s wife turns up, arriving at midnight at the London apartment of Mr Murbles, the defence solicitor, and when being admitted, saying she is ready to testify to save Gerald’s life, that he was with her for the crucial early hours of the fateful October night – even though she knows her husband may track her down and kill her for it.

A conference of Murbles, Parker and Lady Mary are torn because they want her evidence but are horrified at the danger she’s placed herself in. In the event, the next day she is kept in a separate room at the court (which is being held in the old hall in Parliament) to be held in reserve in case needed.

Later that morning Wimsey makes a dramatic entrance into the great hall, before the serried ranks of British aristocracy, marches up to the bar and presents his Big Piece of Evidence. This is a love letter Cathcart wrote to the Great Love of His Life bidding her adieu and saying that, since she dumped him for an American millionaire, life has no meaning and so he is going to commit suicide!

(This lover was the woman Wimsey realised was the statuesque blonde who the Paris jewellers sold the little cat mascot which Lady Mary swore she’d never seen before, the blonde accompanying Cathcart when he bought it. In Paris he managed to establish her name – Mademoiselle Simone Vonderaa – and then discovered that she had taken up with American millionaire – a Mr Cornelius Van Humperdinck – and that they’d both returned to New York. Which is where Wimsey tracked her down and, after much pleading, persuaded her to surrender Cathcart’s last letter, in effect a suicide note, which is now read out with dramatic impact to the audience of assembled peers of the realm.

Now you might have thought (or hoped) that this would be the end of the trial and the story, but you would be very much mistaken indeed. There are three more chunky chapters still to go and the trial itself barely falters.

I’m quite shagged out writing this much, so I won’t give away the end of the story and the final revelations. The whole thing is available online (see link below).

Cast

  • Lord Peter Wimsey
    • Bunter – his valet
  • Gerald ‘Jerry’ Denver, 16th Duke of Denver
    • James Fleming – his man
  • Helen, Duchess of Denver – wife of Gerald Wimsey, and so Lady Mary Wimsey’s sister-in-law and Lord Peter Wimsey’s sister-in-law – ‘whose misfortune it was to become disagreeable when she was unhappy’
  • Lady Mary Wimsey – sister of the Duke, ‘a very objectionable specimen of the modern independent young woman’
    • Ellen – her maid
  • The Dowager Duchess of Denver – ‘She was a long-necked, long-backed woman, who disciplined her hair and her children. She was never embarrassed, and her anger, though never permitted to be visible, made itself felt the more’
  • Captain Denis Cathcart – fiancé of Lady Mary, found shot dead after a furious row with Gerald
  • Miss Lydia Cathcart – the captain’s aunt, disapproved of him and his Parisian ways
  • Colonel Marchbanks
  • Mrs Marchbanks
  • Mr Theodore Pettigrew-Robinson – a county magistrate
  • Mrs Pettigrew-Robinson
  • Riddlesdale Lodge – a roomy, two-storied house, built in a plain style, and leased to Lord Denver for the season by its owner, Mr Montague, who has gone to the States
    • Ellen – the housemaid
  • The Honourable Freddy Arbuthnot – posh and dim
  • John Hardraw – the gamekeeper
  • Dr Thorpe
  • Inspector Craikes from Stapley
  • Detective-Inspector Parker of Scotland Yard, lives in a flat in Great Ormond Street
  • Mr Murbles – the solicitor
    • Simpson – his man-servant
  • Mr Foulis – local parson
  • Sir Impey Biggs – barrister, ‘the handsomest man in England, and no woman will ever care twopence for him’ – 38 and a bachelor
  • Dr Lubbock – the ‘analytical gentleman’ i.e. forensics
  • Monsieur Briquet – owner of jewellers shop in Paris
  • His shop assistant who sold the jewelled cat
  • Sir Andrew Mackenzie – the Chief of Scotland Yard who Wimsey goes to visit about his brother, before bumping into…
  • Miss Tarrant – ‘a good Socialist’ – ‘a cheerful young woman with bobbed red hair, dressed in a short checked skirt, brilliant jumper, corduroy jacket, and a rakish green velvet tam-o’-shanter’ – takes Wimsey to the Soviet Club
  • George Goyles – tall fair revolutionary who Wimsey chases through Soho before he turns and shoots him – turns out to have planned to elope with Lady Mary
  • Wilkes – under-gardener at Riddlesdown
  • Grimethorpe – surly, angry, violent owner of Grider’s Hole farmhouse
  • Mrs Grimethorpe – his stunningly beautiful wife who, it turns out, was having an affair with Gerald Denver
  • Greg Smith – landlord of the Bridge and Bottle
  • Mr Timothy Watchett – landlord of the Rose and Crown – ‘a small, spare, sharp-eyed man of about fifty-five, with so twinkling and humorous an eye and so alert a cock of the head that Lord Peter summed up his origin the moment he set eyes on him’ i.e. he’s a Londoner
  • Bet – barmaid at the Rose and Crown
  • Jem – ostler at the Rose and Crown
  • Sir Wigmore Wrinching – the Attorney-General
  • the Lord High Steward
  • Mr. Glibbery – assistant lawyer to Sir Impey Biggs
  • Grant – the pilot who flies Wimsey across the Atlantic
  • Mr Cornelius van Humperdinck – very rich and stout and suspicious
  • Mademoiselle Simone Vonderaa
    • Adèle – her maid, ‘thin-lipped and wary-eyed, denying everything’

Biographical trivia

Peter Wimsey was a Major in the army and had a breakdown before the end of the Great War. He has occasional flashbacks, PTSD.

Wimsey is five foot nine tall, Parker is 6 foot. Parker attended Barrow-in-Furness Grammar School (quite a contrast from Eton).

  • ‘Narrow grey eyes’
  • ‘Wimsey’s long, flexible mouth and nervous hands…’

Wimsey’s motivation:

Although he had taken to detecting as he might, with another conscience or constitution, have taken to Indian hemp—for its exhilarating properties—at a moment when life seemed dust and ashes, he had not primarily the detective temperament. (Chapter 4)

Achievements:

He was a respectable scholar in five or six languages, a musician of some skill and more understanding, something of an expert in toxicology, a collector of rare editions, an entertaining man-about-town, and a common sensationalist. (Chapter 4)

Cane:

His favourite stick—a handsome malacca, marked off in inches for detective convenience, and concealing a sword in its belly and a compass in its head. (Chapter 11)

Sir Impey

Charismatic leading barrister, Sayers gives him some satirical observation about lawyers.

‘I am doing my very best to persuade him, Duchess,’ said Sir Impey, ‘but you must have patience. Lawyers enjoy a little mystery, you know. Why, if everybody came forward and told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth straight out, we should all retire to the workhouse.’ (Chapter 3)

‘Damn it all, we want to get at the truth!’
‘Do you?’ said Sir Impey drily. ‘I don’t. I don’t care twopence about the truth. I want a case.’ (Chapter 10)

Or the object of jokes:

‘I fear we may have to wait a few moments for Sir Impey,’ said Mr. Murbles, consulting his watch. ‘He is engaged in Quangle & Hamper v. Truth, but they expect to be through this morning—in fact, Sir Impey fancied that midday would see the end of it. Brilliant man, Sir Impey. He is defending Truth.’
‘Astonishin’ position for a lawyer, what?’ said Peter.
‘The newspaper,’ said Mr. Murbles… (Chapter 10)

Oscar

Sayers has a few pokes at the aristocracy. To my mind, these kinds of deprecating jokes made by aristocratic types about their own class always sound like Oscar Wilde.

‘It is possible, my lord, if your lordship will excuse my saying so, that the liveliness of your lordship’s manner may be misleading to persons of limited—’
Be careful, Bunter!’
‘Limited imagination, my lord.’
‘Well-bred English people never have imagination, Bunter.’
‘Certainly not, my lord. I meant nothing disparaging.’

Bookish connoisseur

The loving descriptions of books, attributed to bookish characters, are obviously by a connoisseur i.e. Sayers herself.

Cathcart’s books here consist of a few modern French novels of the usual kind, and another copy of Manon with what the catalogues call ‘curious’ plates.

Opposite the fireplace stood a tall mahogany bookcase with glass doors, containing a number of English and French classics, a large collection of books on history and international politics, various French novels, a number of works on military and sporting subjects, and a famous French edition of the Decameron with the additional plates.

All this stuff about the ‘plates’ – specialist knowledge.

Elsewhere Sayers mocks her own bookishness in the random stream-of-consciousness of the Dowager Duchess, where you can play Spot the Literary Reference.

‘What oft was thought and frequently much better expressed, as Pope says—or was it somebody else? But the worse you express yourself these days the more profound people think you—though that’s nothing new. Like Browning and those quaint metaphysical people, when you never know whether they really mean their mistress or the Established Church, so bridegroomy and biblical—to say nothing of dear S. Augustine—the Hippo man, I mean, not the one who missionized over here, though I daresay he was delightful too, and in those days I suppose they didn’t have annual sales of work and tea in the parish room, so it doesn’t seem quite like what we mean nowadays by missionaries—he knew all about it—you remember about that mandrake—or is that the thing you had to get a big black dog for? Manichee, that’s the word. What was his name? Was it Faustus? Or am I mixing him up with the old man in the opera?’ (Chapter 9)

Literariness

Wimsey is given to making literary references but then so is Charles Parker. The latter has an amateur interest in theology, so both men might make Biblical or scholarly references. This gives them a distinctive flavour, a bit off-putting for the general reader, you’d have thought.

‘There are many difficulties inherent in a teleological view of creation,’ said Parker placidly. (Chapter 3)

After which he went to bed, and read himself to sleep with a commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. (Chapter 5)

Wimsey quotes ‘The Merchant of Venice’:

From such a ditch as this,
When the soft wind did gently kiss the trees
And they did make no noise, from such a ditch
Our friend, methinks, mounted the Troyan walls,
And wiped his soles upon the greasy mud.

Refers to Sir Walter Scott’s ‘The Lay of the Last Minstrel’ and quotes lots of other songs and folk poems. He quotes a clerihew in its entirety.

‘What I like about Clive
Is that he is no longer alive—
There is a great deal to be said
For being dead.’

And music

As in the first book, Wimsey is depicted as knowledgeable about classical music.

He leaned on the wall and began whistling softly, but with great accuracy, that elaborate passage of Bach which begins ‘Let Zion’s children’. (Chapter 3)

Here he revived sufficiently to lift up his voice in ‘Come unto these Yellow Sands‘. Thence, feeling in a Purcellish mood, he passed to ‘I Attempt from Love’s Fever to Fly.’

The self-consciousness of detective fiction

‘Hitherto,’ said Lord Peter, as they picked their painful way through the little wood on the trail of Gent’s No. 10’s, ‘I have always maintained that those obliging criminals who strew their tracks with little articles of personal adornment—here he is, on a squashed fungus—were an invention of detective fiction for the benefit of the author. I see that I have still something to learn about my job.’ (Chapter 3)

‘Trouble?’ she said. ‘Why, you silly old Peter, of course I’m in trouble. Don’t you know they’ve killed my man and put my brother in prison? Isn’t that enough to be in trouble about?’ She laughed, and Peter suddenly thought, ‘She’s talking like somebody in a blood-and-thunder novel.’

I’m amazed that, just like Agatha Christie, Sayers apparently feels compelled to namecheck Sherlock Hlmles in every novel. He is like a ghost that every detective story has to raise in order to exorcise it – not once, but five times! Here’s Wimsey’s mother, the Dowager Duchess:

‘I think my mother’s talents deserve a little acknowledgment. I said so to her, as a matter of fact, and she replied in these memorable words: ‘My dear child, you can give it a long name if you like, but I’m an old-fashioned woman and I call it mother-wit, and it’s so rare for a man to have it that if he does you write a book about him and call him Sherlock Holmes.’ (Chapter 6)

Here’s Parker waiting for Wimsey when he hears the door open and:

His first thought was that Wimsey must have left his latchkey behind, and he was preparing a facetious greeting when the door opened—exactly as in the beginning of a Sherlock Holmes story—to admit a tall and beautiful young woman, in an extreme state of nervous agitation… (Chapter 7)

Here’s Wimsey arguing with his brother:

‘I wish you’d jolly well keep out of it,’ grunted the Duke. ‘Isn’t it all damnable enough for Helen, poor girl, and mother, and everyone, without you makin’ it an opportunity to play Sherlock Holmes?’ (Chapter 11)

And the garrulous landlord of the xxx pub:

He smacked open a Daily Mirror of a fortnight or so ago. The front page bore a heavy block headline: THE RIDDLESDALE MYSTERY. And beneath was a lifelike snapshot entitled, ‘Lord Peter Wimsey, the Sherlock Holmes of the West End, who is devoting all his time and energies to proving the innocence of his brother, the Duke of Denver.’

Wimsey versus Poirot

Poirot is head and shoulders above Wimsey. I quite enjoyed reading some of the Wimsey novels but have two big objections:

1. Wimsey’s caricature poshboy speech becomes really irksome really quickly. And I don’t really believe in it either, don’t believe someone relatively clever could come across as such an upper-class twit.

2. Somehow this, and Wimsey’s general verbosity, feel like they get in the way of the story. In the two Wimsey novels I’ve read, I felt I didn’t follow the logic of numerous developments, something you rarely experience with Christie whose exposition is often clarity itself. For example, I didn’t follow why Wimsey went to visit Grimethorpe. It feels like numerous clues and elements in the plot are forced and contrived, while at the same time you’re trying to penetrate the fog of Wimsy’s silly manner. Here, for example, is the first time he comes to Gride’s Hole and finds one of Grimethorpe’s men blocking the big gate to the house. This is how Wimsey addresses him when he confirms that Grimethorpe lives in this house:

‘No, does he now?’ said Lord Peter. ‘To think of that. Just the fellow I want to see. Model farmer, what? Wherever I go throughout the length and breadth of the North Riding I hear of Mr. Grimethorpe. ‘Grimethorpe’s butter is the best’; ‘Grimethorpe’s fleeces Never go to pieces’; ‘Grimethorpe’s pork Melts on the fork’; ‘For Irish stews Take Grimethorpe’s ewes’; ‘A tummy lined with Grimethorpe’s beef, Never, never comes to grief.’ It has been my life’s ambition to see Mr. Grimethorpe in the flesh. And you no doubt are his sturdy henchman and right-hand man. You leap from bed before the breaking-day, To milk the kine amid the scented hay. You, when the shades of evening gather deep, Home from the mountain lead the mild-eyed sheep. You, by the ingle’s red and welcoming blaze, Tell your sweet infants tales of olden days! A wonderful life, though a trifle monotonous p’raps in the winter. Allow me to clasp your honest hand.’

Surely the gritty Yorkshire farm hand he’s addressing would be fully justified in punching Wimsey in the face, the patronising toff.

By contrast with all this, Christie is wonderfully crisp and clear in the presentation of her cases. More, Poirot feels like a kind of walking expression of the detecting principle; somehow, he epitomises the stories themselves. The stereotypical scenes where he brings all the suspects together in one room and goes through their stories one by one are not only fictionally effective, but feel like they penetrate to the essence of the detective story as a genre. They feel like X-rays through the body of the murder mystery genre. In this way Poirot is a profound figure, something approaching an archetype.

Wimsey is not. He is often an irritating pillock. The stories are OK, but the clutter of detail is not clarified by Wimsey in the same way that Poirot so acutely picks out details to help the reader. Instead it feels like quite hard work trying to pierce through Wimsey’s silly mannerisms and posh bluster to find out what’s going on.

I’ve mentioned Wimsey’s bookishness, his expertise in old editions and his endless dropping of literary and poetic quotes and tags and references. On the one hand you could say this is a cause of readerly enjoyment i.e. it adds to the multitextual feel, and it certainly gives him an Oxford literary vibe. But in a different mood, you could see it as more of the verbiage and clutter which obscures the stories.

Adventure

On the plus side, I suppose you can put the visceral thrills of some parts of the narrative. The scene where Wimsey and Bunter stumble into the swamp and Wimsey starts to get sucked down into it is, despite being corny as hell, thrilling and exciting. And you can see how the vivid description of Wimsey’s flight in a single-propellor plane across the Atlantic in a storm (broken into two parts by a chapter of the trial coming in the middle; piloted by a world-famous aviator named simply ‘Grant’) is also intended to be as thrilling as possible.

In other words, Sayers threw into her stories a good dollop of Bulldog Drummond / Sexton Blake thrills and spills that Poirot, fastidiously brushing an invisible speck of dust off his shiny spats, couldn’t be further from. I wonder if there’ll be similar thrills and spills episodes in the subsequent books…


Credit

‘Clouds of Witness’ by Dorothy L. Sayers was published in 1926 by T. Fisher Unwin.

Related links

Related reviews

  • 1920s reviews
  • Detective novels
  • Dorothy L Sayers

The Catastrophist by Ronan Bennett (1997)

Everything since independence has been a sick joke. (p.206)

The Catastrophist slowly builds to become a gripping novel on the strength of Bennett’s powerful evocation of its historical setting, the Belgian Congo, in the fraught months leading up to and following its independence on 30 June 1960, and in particular what David van Reybrouck calls the Shakespearian tragedy surrounding the murder of its first elected Prime Minister, Patrice Lumumba, in January 1961.

Those are the background, historical facts, but front and centre of the novel is the story of the narrator’s doomed love affair with a passionately political woman 13 years his junior which gives rise to numerous passages of purple prose and florid digressions on the nature of love which I found almost impossible to read.

Let’s deal with some of the negatives first, before getting onto the muscular strength of the positives.

A novel about a novelist

There are a number of reasons to dislike this novel. For a start it’s a novel told in the first person about a novelist who’s struggling to write a novel (p.12) and spends an inordinate amount of time worrying about the special problems of being a writer, about being so concerned about finding the right words that he is too self conscious to really live, to give himself to the world, to commit… and so on and so on – a subject so hackneyed and tiresome that several times I nearly gave up reading the book.

My third eye, my writer’s eye, monitors every word and gesture. It makes me fearful of my own censure. I can only hold back. (p.108)

Because the narrator is so obsessed with his status and role as a ‘writer’ he feels like an ‘outsider’, like a permanently alienated observer of everything going on around him, and makes sure we know it by continually repeating the fact:

  • I am surrounded – always – by my own distance. (p.10)
  • I am the trained observer…
  • I am not truly part of this…
  • I move away to stand alone, apart, removed from the people…
  • …my ever-evasive presence…
  • [I am] the habitual onlooker… (p.49)
  • I have spent too much time in the cheerless solitude of my own ego.
  • Is this all I have ever been? A selfish, egotistical watcher? (p.268)

This all feels extremely tired and old, a worn-out, stereotyped concept of the writer as ah-so-alienated martyr to his superior sensitivity.

And my words, what worth have they? From my youth I have lived with disguises and…I have forgotten what my real words are. I have lived disguised from myself, in permanent doubt of my emotional authenticity; and since I am never alone with myself, since I am always watching the character playing my part in the scene, there is no possibility of spontaneity. (p.129)

Accompanying this tremendously narcissistic self-consciousness goes a self-consciously ‘poetic’ style, but of a particularly ‘modern’ variety. During the 1980s the ever-more popular creative writing courses spread the gospel of cutting back on style, removing adjectives, keeping it simple, understating feeling and description in order to produce a taut, clear, plain prose which, however, gives the impression of being charged with suppressed feeling. Less is more. Or at least that’s the intention.

When it doesn’t work, however, this prose strategy comes over as just plain and boring, particularly if the author turns out not to have much to say, or lacks a real feel for the language. I’m afraid this is how Bennett reads to me:

I go down to the crowd and find myself next to Madeleine. The water-skiers weave and circle, a pied kingfisher hovers twenty feet above the water. There are men in military uniform on the far bank. (p.41)

I wake when she gets up to the bathroom. She urinates, then pads sleepily flat-footed back to bed. She yawns and lets out a small noise as she stretches. She breathes deeply, settling again under the sheet. (p.27)

There is a woman in London. Her name is Margaret. I am not proud of this. (p.49)

I pull out a chair for Madeleine. She takes up her things and comes over. She orders orange juice, coffee, toast and scrambled eggs. She leans back in her chair and crosses her tanned legs. She is wearing a black one-piece swimsuit under her robe. She draws on her cigarette and exhales a jet of smoke. I can’t see her eyes behind the shades. (p.77)

It’s not just that it’s pedestrian, it’s that it’s pedestrian with pretensions to be the kind of taut, understated, reined-in style which secretly conceals profound passion, which I described above as being the regulation, modern, creative-writing class style. It’s the pretentiousness of its deliberate flatness which I find irritating.

But just so we know he doesn’t always have to write this flatly, Bennett jazzes up his basic plain style with 1. occasional flashy metaphors and 2. with turns of phrase which are intended, I think, to come over as sensitive and perceptive, particularly when describing the ‘doomed’ love affair which is the central subject of the novel. 1. Here’s a few examples of his sudden flashes of metaphor:

The pitted sponge of jungle gives way to scrub and sand. The sun is red in the east. (p.9)

Jungle does not look like a sponge. Sponges are sandy colour. Jungle is a thousand shades of green. See what I mean by the deliberate understatement in fact concealing the wish to be taken as poetic.

I might have begun to resent my exclusion from the ribbons of her laughter had I not enjoyed seeing again her social display. (p.23)

‘Ribbons of her laughter’ feels like it is written to impress and it ought to impress but… I’m not impressed. In a way the numb, dumb, plain style is deployed precisely so as to be a background to occasional fireworks but I find Bennett’s fireworks too self-consciously artistic to be enjoyable. His prose so obviously wants to be adored. It is so needy.

There was a piercing veer to the December wind… (p.72)

2. Here’s some examples of the turns of phrase which are meant to indicate what a sensitive, perceptive soul the writer is, how alert to the subtleties of human relationships. They are, in other words, a continuation of his self-pitying sense of his own specialness as a writer, an outsider, a ‘trained observer’.

She is not an early riser, but this morning is different. The air tastes of imminence, there are patterns to the clouds and she can see things. I sit on the bed, silent, feet on the floor. (p.29)

‘The air tastes of imminence.’ There are many phrases like this, rising from the numb, dumb, basic style to signpost the author’s sensitivity to mood and impression. Most of them occur around the subject of his doomed love for passionate, small, sensitive Inès.

Our disagreements are fundamental, our minds dispar, but I live in our differences: my blankness draws on her vitality. She exists me. (p.74)

This type of linguistic deformation wins prizes – literally – and is clever and locally effective i.e it gives the reader a frisson of poetic pleasure. But I couldn’t help feeling it wouldn’t be necessary to use rare words or deform syntax like this if Bennett had a more natural ability to express himself within the usual meanings of words and syntax. Instead, moments like this seem designed to show off his special sensitivity, the same sensitivity which condemns him to always be standing apart, at a distance from everyone else. ‘I am not truly part of this’. ‘I move away to stand alone, apart.’ Oh, the poor sweet sensitive soul!

The whole thing is so nakedly designed to appeal to a certain kind of self-consciously poetic and alienated and oh-so-sensitive reader that I found it hard not to despise.

Older man in love with passionate, idealistic, younger woman

It is 1959. James Gillespie is an Irishman living in London. He is a writer. He writes novels.

‘Zoubir tells me you’re a writer,’ de Scheut says. ‘What do you write?’
‘Novels,’ I say.

He has been having an affair with a passionate Italian journalist thirteen year his junior, Inès Sabiani (p.39). (When I was a schoolboy and student I ‘went out’ with girls. It was only at university that the public schoolgirls I met introduced me to the bourgeois domain where people ‘have affairs’, a phrase designed to make hoity-toity people’s lives sound so much more interesting and classy than yours or mine. The way Bennett describes James and Inès’s affair is a good example of the way people in novels often live on a more exalted plane than the humble likes of you and I. Indeed, part of the appeal of this kind of prize-winning novel for its Sunday supplement-reading audience is precisely the way it makes its readers’ lives feel more cosmopolitan, exciting, refined and sensitive. Sunday supplement fiction.)

The daughter of a communist partisan (p.158), Inès is herself a communist, a passionate, fiery, committed idealist. (Of course she is. Why does this feel so tired and obvious and predictable?) James, her older lover, senses that he is losing her and pines like a puppy to restore their former intimacy. (Of course he does. It feels like I’ve read this tiresome story hundreds of times.)

Why did I react so acerbically? The answer is not hard to find. I am being squeezed out of her orbit. I have come a thousand miles to pin her down, but I see there is no chance of that in these crowded, coursing times. I am bitter. There is no place for me. (p.47)

Inès is a journalist and has been sent to the Belgian Congo to write magazine pieces about the growing political unrest and calls for independence. The main narrative opens as James flies in to Léopoldville airport, takes a taxi into town and is reunited with his passionate Italian lover. He immediately realises she has become passionately, idealistically committed to the cause of independence and, in particular, to the person of the charismatic Congolese politician, Patrice Lumumba. James is losing her to The Cause.

I look at her with the whole fetch of her story behind my eyes, but she will not yield, she will not soften. Why is she being like this? She used to love me. (p.91)

I wanted to give him a sharp smack and tell him to grow up.

James moves into Inès’s hotel room, they have sex, lie around naked, he watches her pee, they have baths, showers, get dressed, go to parties and receptions. But their former intimacy is somehow lacking and James is puzzled, hurt, frustrated and worries how to restore it. A wall separates them. But then, he realises they are completely different personality types. He is a realist, she is an idealist.

What is real to me is what can be seen; I understand above all else the evidence of the eyes. She is moved by things that cannot be described, that are only half-glimpsed, and when she writes… it is not primarily to inform her audience, but to touch them. (p.47)

Inès is chronically late for everything, she has no sense of direction, she comically mangles English words and phrases (p.90). It’s almost as if Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus 🙂

His beloved is so special

Oh, but she is so special, this Inès, and inspires the narrator to special feelings about her specialness and his specialness for fully understanding her specialness.

She divides me. Her words divide me. Her language refuses the disciplines of the eye, of history, of the world as it is. Her imagination turns on symbol and myth. She lives in the rush of all-embracing sympathy, and sometimes, listening to her song, my lulled motions slip their noose and follow in the blind career of her allegiance… (p.45)

The prose does this – turns to mush – every time the narrator thinks and writes about his beloved, turns into extended dithyrambs to Inès’ passion and intelligence and insight and way with words and commitment. She is small and fragile. She has small breasts. She has a ‘small, slight’ body (p.72), she is light as a feather (p.117), she has a little bottom (p.131). She is ‘small and trembling’ (p.224). She has a tiny hand (p.69), a tiny fist (p.116) just like Mimì in La Bohème but her eyes are big and shining. Life is too hard for such a sensitive soul.

All this is contrasted with James’s stolid, pedestrian practicality. He is self consciously ‘older, wry and amused’ by her idealism, by her political passions (p.70). They first met in Ireland where she had come to do interviews and become passionately, naively excited about the IRA and their campaign for Irish unification. James tells us he will bide his time before filling her in about the complicated realities of a divided Ireland. He thinks she lives in a simplistic world of good and bad, and feels his lack of commitment, his wry amusement at all types of political passion, is sadly superior.

This is the binary opposition they present in Congo: she young, idealistic and passionate about the cause of independence, increasingly and dangerously involved with the key people; he, older, disillusioned, sardonically superior to political engagement, incapable of any commitment, permanently standing to one side.

James’s sentimental worship of Inès, the committed journalist and passionate woman of the people, closely resembles the sentimental worship of his caring, altruistic wife, Tessa, by the older, jaded protagonist of John le Carré’s novel, The Constant Gardener. The realistic, rationalist man seeing the real picture while trying to protect the passionate but fragile sensitive little woman. In both novels the attitude seems to me sentimental, maudlin, patronising and sexist.

The Graham Greene paradigm

As to the setting, well, that is genuinely interesting. Not many anglophone novelists have written about the Congo. A notable exception is Graham Greene, in his gloomy 1960 novel, A Burnt-Out Case. About ten of the many fulsome blurbs on The Catastrophist‘s cover compare Bennett’s novel to Greene’s. He must have gotten heartily sick of the comparison.

But what I find most Greeneian about The Catastrophist is not the ‘exotic’ setting but the extreme predictability about almost every aspect of the story. Jaded older man in love with vivacious younger woman. Frank descriptions of love-making tinged with sadness that he is losing her. These are straight out of Greene’s book-length account of a doomed romance in The End of The Affair (1951) and of the doomed romance in The Quiet American (1955). It’s the mood le Carré borrows for all his stories of doomed love between old, rational men and younger, sexy, idealistic but vulnerable women.

A few chapters into the narrative Inès takes James to a swanky reception/garden party hosted by one of the most influential local Europeans, Bernard Houthhoofd (p.35). Here James meets a selection of European colonialists, colons to use the French word, who are straight out of central casting, the kind of chorus of secondary characters which seem super-familiar from Graham Greene’s later works, and from all novels of this type.

  • There is the rich host himself, sleek and unperturbed.
  • There is the snobby or arrogant or ignorant middle-class white woman, Madeleine, who thinks all natives or indigènes (as the French-speaking Belgians call them) are ghastly, they are children, they need a strong leader, they are nowhere near ready for independence etc (p.79).
  • There is the decent businessman, de Scheut, who is worried for the safety of his children in these dangerous times.
  • There is Zoubir Smail, a Lebanese-born diamond merchant (p.268).
  • There’s Roger who is, alas, not the lodger but the thoroughly decent English doctor.
  • There’s a journalist, Grant, the epitome of the English public schoolboy with his height, condescension and floppy haircut (p.113).
  • And there is the crop-haired, big-headed American, Mark Stipe (p.39) who may or may not be working for the CIA.

Could it possibly be more like a Graham Greene novel with a cast almost as stereotyped as an Agatha Christie novel? Or like his heir, John le Carré, with his descriptions of privileged ex-pat communities in places like Hong Kong (The Honourable Schoolboy) and Nigeria (The Constant Gardener).

The whole novel just feels so programmatic and predictable.

Symbolism

The garden party is a good example of another aspect of the novel which is that, although completely realist in style and conception, Bennett is careful to give his scenes symbolic resonance. Thus the garden party at Houthhoofd’s place doesn’t take place in Léopoldville, capital of the Congo (the city which, six years later, Mobutu would rename Kinshasa) but on the other side of the river, in the French colony of Congo (south of the river was the Belgian Congo, north of the river was the French Congo).

The point being that when all the guests become aware of a disturbance back on the Belgian side, some kind of protest which turns into a riot and then the police opening fire on the crowd, they observe all this at a great distance, only barely perceivable through a pair of binoculars one guest happens to have on him. It is a symbol, you see, of the great distance which separated the pampered lives of the European colons from the harsh lives of the locals.

This and various other moments in or aspects of the book feel as if they’ve been written with the Brodie’s Notes summary in mind, with events and characters written to order to fit into sections called Themes, Character, Symbolism, Treatment and so on, ready for classrooms full of bored GCSE students to copy out. All the way through, I had the sensation that I’d read this book before, because the plot, incidental events and many of its perceptions about love and politics feel not only familiar, but so schematic.

In its final quarter The Catastrophist develops into quite a gripping narrative but never shakes the feeling that it has been painted by numbers, written to order, according to a checklist of themes and ideas and insights which had to be included and checked off.

(The riot isn’t a random occurrence. Bennett is describing the protest march which turned into a massacre which led the Belgian authorities to set up a commission of enquiry – which predictably exonerated the police – but was important because it led directly Lumumba’s arrest and imprisonment for alleged incitement in November 1959.)

Sex in the bourgeois novel

Sex is everywhere in the bourgeois novel. One of the main reasons for reading middle-class novels is the sensitive, caring way in which elaborate, imaginative sex between uninhibited and physically perfect partners routinely occurs. Which is all rather unlike ‘real life’ in which my own experience, the experience of everyone I’ve ever slept with or talked to about sex, everything I’ve heard from the women in my life, from feminists, from advice columns, and newspaper articles and surveys, suggest otherwise. In the real world people struggle in all kinds of ways with their sexuality, not least the fact that people are often too ill, sick, tired, drunk or physically incapacitated to feel horny. Most women have periods, some very painful, which preclude sex for a substantial percentage of the time. According to the most thorough research, about 1 in 5 people have some kind of sexually transmitted disease. In other words, sex in the real world is often physically, psychologically and emotionally difficult and messy.

Whereas the way the male protagonists of novels by Graham Greene or David Lodge or Howard Jacobson or Alan Furst (the most eminent literary shaggers I can think of) or, in this case, Ronan Bennett, can barely exchange a few words with a woman before they’re between the sheets having athletic, imaginative sex with women who are physically perfect and have deep, rewarding orgasms. It’s hard not to conclude that this is the wildest male fantasy but at the same time one of the central appeals of the modern novel. Respectable sex. Wonderful and caring sex. The kind of sex we’d all like to have but mostly don’t.

The narrator tells us that Inès climaxes quickly and easily (p.131). Well, that’s handy. And also that Inès prefers to slow love-making right down, hold her partner in position above her, and then rub her clitoris against his penis until she achieves orgasm with short quiet yelps. Once she has climaxed, penetrative lovemaking can continue until the man climaxes inside her (p.72). Well, I’m glad that’s settled, then.

Setting – the Belgian Congo at independence

Anyway, to focus on the actual setting for a moment: the novel is set in the Belgian Congo in late 1959 and covers the period of the runup to independence on 30 June 1960 and then the 6 months of political and social turmoil which followed and led up to the kidnap and murder of the country’s first Prime Minister, the fiery speechmaker and anti-colonial activist Patrice Lumumba.

Bennett deploys a series of scenes designed to capture the tense atmosphere of the time and place. It’s an early example of Bennett’s realist/symbolical approach when he’s barely touched down and is being driven into town, when the car is hit by a stone thrown by an unseen attacker. It is a first tiny warning of the resentment felt by blacks to privileged whites, an indicator of the violence latent in the situation. Later he and other guests emerge from a restaurant and see a menacing crowd of blacks at the edge of the white, colonial part of town, who escalate from chanting to throwing stones and then into a full-blown attack on shops and cars. Then there is the garden party scene I’ve described, where the guests witness a riot across the river and some of them spy, through the binoculars, the police throwing bodies of the protesters they’ve shot into the river.

Back in their hotel room after the party/riot Inès punches out an angry impassioned description of the protest/massacre on her typewriter to send to her communist magazine, L’Unità.

The American CIA character, Mark Stipe, steadily grows in importance, until he is nearly as central as the CIA man, Alden Pyle, is in Greene’s Quiet American. Having Stipe work for some, initially unnamed, US government agency means he can quickly brief the narrator on the Real Situation (or at least as the Americans see it). Stipe lets James read their files about the general economic situation (Congo relies entirely on the raw resources mined by the Union Minière) and the leading political figures – Patrice Lumumba head of the MNC political party; Joseph Kasavubu, head of the Alliance des Bakongo (ABAKO) and chief of the Bakongo people; Antoine Gizenga, leader of the Parti Solidiare Africain.

Early on Stipe bumps into James in a bar and surprises him by taking him to see Lumumba’s (boring, ordinary) suburban house, but then driving on to a dingier part of town, where he locates a safe house, owned by one Mungul, where it turns out that Lumumba is actually hiding. Stipe briefly introduces James to Lumumba, before disappearing into another room with him for a private convo.

In other words, Stipe plays the role of Exposition, feeding the narrator all the important facts about the political situation so that he (and the reader) can quickly get up to speed.

But he also plays another important role, that of binary opposite to idealistic Inès. Stipe is the slangy, cynical, seen-it-all realist. After talking to him, James feels he knows what is really going on, and this makes him feel superior when he goes back to the apartment and talks to Inès who is all fired up about Freedom and Justice. With our GCSE hat on, we could say the novel asks the question: who is right? Cynical Stipe or idealistic Inès? Which side should jaded old James commit to?

(This points to another way in which the conventional modern novel flatters its readers: it makes us feel we understand what’s going on. It makes us feel clever, in the know, well-connected whereas, in my experience of political journalism, no-one knows what’s going on. As the subsequent history of the Congo amply demonstrates…Novels which present neat moral dilemmas like this are almost by definition unrealistic, because most of us live our entire lives without being faced with really stark choices.)

Stipe and Lumumba share a driver/fixer named Auguste Kilundu (p.252). He is one of the rare African voices in the novel. Through him Bennett displays a lot of background information, namely about the évolués, the tiny educated elite which emerged in the last decade of Belgian rule. In 1952 the colonial administration introduced the carte d’immatriculation which granted blacks who held it full legal equality with Europeans. It required a detailed assessment of the candidate’s level of ‘civilisation’ by an investigating commission who even visited their homes to make sure the toilet and the cutlery were clean.

Bennett makes this character, Auguste, the proud possessor of a carte d’immatriculation and another vehicle for factual exposition for he can explain to the all-unknowing narrator the tribal backgrounds and rivalries of the main Congolese politicians. Having handily given us all this exposition, Auguste is then depicted as an enthusiastic supporter of Lumumba’s MNC party which aims to supersede tribalism and create a post-tribal modern nation (pages 85 to 88).

The plot

Part one: Léopoldville, November 1959

Middle-aged, Northern Irish novelist James Gillespie flies into the Belgian Congo in November 1959 to be with his lover, Italian communist journalist, Inès Sabiani. He quickly finds himself drawn into the drama surrounding the run-up to Congo’s hurried independence, forced along by growing unrest and rivalry between native politicians, with a small cast of characters European and Congolese giving differing perspectives on the main events. Central to these is the American government agent Mark Stipe.

James witnesses riots. He sees little everyday scenes of racial antagonism, the daily contempt of the colons for the blacks they insultingly call macaques or ‘monkeys’. He writes articles for the British press about the growing calls for independence and, as a rersult, is spat on and punched in restaurants by infuriated colons. His little cohort of liberal Belgians and ex-pat British friends support him. He grows increasingly estranged from Inès who is out till all hours following up stories, befriending the locals, getting the lowdown and then punching out angry articles on her typewriter for L’Unità. They both watch Lumumba being arrested by the nervous colonial police in front of a crowd of angry blacks following the October riot.

The narrative then skips a few months to the opening of the Belgo-Congolese Round Table Conference which commenced on 20 January 1960. Then skips to 27 February, the date on which the conference announced that full independence would be granted on 30 June 1960. They go out to watch a black freedom march but Inès helps turn it into a riot by walking arm in arm with Lumumba’s évolué driver, Auguste. The sight of a white woman walking with a black man prompts bigoted colons to wade into the crowd and abuse her, and to drag Auguste off and give him a beating. James wades in to protect Inès and has a brief punch-up with a big whitey, before managing to take her out of the mob, though he can do nothing to save Auguste who is beaten to the ground by a furious white mob.

For a period following the riot, Inès is ill, confined to bed, vomiting and losing weight. James is quietly pleased about this as she is restricted to contact with him, ceases her political activities and gives him hope their love will be rekindled. They hadn’t been sleeping together but now, on one occasion, they have sensitive soulful sex of the kind found in sensitive novels about sensitive people designed to thrill sensitive readers.

James and Inès attend an MNC rally in the Matongé stadium in the build-up to the pre-independence elections (held in May 1960). Stipe invites James to go on a long road trip with him and Auguste to the province of Katanga in the south-east. On the journey Stipe shares a lot about his personal life (unhappily married) and motivation.

On the journey it also becomes clear that Auguste is changing and is no longer so sheepish and submissive. Inès has told James that Auguste has not only joined Lumumba’s MNC but been appointed to a senior position. James is surprised; he thought him an amiable simpleton. On the road trip Stipe loses his temper with Auguste because, he admits, he doesn’t want him cosying up to Lumumba and getting hurt. En route they come across abandoned burned villages. The Baluba and Lulua tribes are fighting, a foreshadowing of the huge tribal divisions and ethnic cleansing which were to bedevil the independent Congo.

They meet with Bernard Houthhoofd at his beautiful property in Katanga. Bennett gives us facts and figures about Katanga’s stupefying mineral wealth. Over dinner Stipe and Houthhoofd list Lumumba’s failings: he smokes dope, he screws around, but chief among them is that he is taking money from the Soviets. A senior official from the MNC, the vice-chairman Victor Nekanda, is at this dinner and promises to betray Lumumba and set up a rival party, a symbol of the kind of two-faced African politician, all-too-ready to sell out to Western, particularly, American backers.

On the long drive back from Katanga to the capital they come to a village where they had stopped on  the outward journey, and find it burned to the ground in tribal violence, every inhabitant killed, many chopped up. They discover that the kindly schoolteacher who had helped them has been not only murdered but his penis cut off (p.175). Premonitions of the future which independence will bring.

On his return to Léopoldville (abbreviated by all the colons to Leo) James has a blazing row with Inès, throwing all the accusations he heard about Lumumba in her face (dope fiend, adulterer, commie stooge). She replies accusing him of lacking heart, compassion and morality and being the dupe of the exploiting colonial regime and its American replacement.

She also accuses him of denying himself and his true nature and for the first time we learn that James’s real name is actually Seamus and he that he has taken an exaggeratedly English name and speaks with an exaggerated English accent because he is on the run from his own past in Ulster, particularly his violent father who beat his mother. Aha. This family background explains why James sees the worst in everyone. Explains why he can’t afford to hope – it’s too painful, he (and his mum) were let down by his violent father too many times.

This blazing row signals the final collapse of their relationship. Inès moves out and James descends into drunken, middle-aged man, psycho hell. He drinks, he loses weight. Stipe and de Scheut take him for meals, offer to have him come stay. Just before the elections in May 1960 he can’t bear to stay in the empty apartment, moves to a rented room, writes Inès a letter begging forgiveness. Grow up, man.

Part two: Ireland and England

Part two leaps back in time to be a brief memoir about James’s aka Seamus’s Irish family – his father, William, a good-looking English graduate who swept his optimistic Catholic mother, Nuala, off her feet, and slowly turned into a maudlin, wife-beating drunk. Seamus serves in the army in the Second World War, goes to university, moves to London to complete a PhD about 17th century England. The narrative dwells on the unhappiness of his parents’ own upbringings and then the humiliations and unhappiness they brought to their own marriage. It is grim, depressing reading, conveyed in Bennett’s plainest, starkest prose.

One day, budding academic James picks up a novel in a second hand shop in London, starts reading, can’t stop, reads more, buys more novels, reads obsessively and decides to become a writer, abandons his PhD, meets a young publisher who encourages him, blah blah.

A novelist writing a novel about a novelist writing about how he became a novelist. Could anything be more boring? All painfully earnest, serious, sensitive, not one bloody joke.

Obviously, the purpose of this brief digression is to shed light on the narrator’s psychology and why he fell so hard for Inès and why he was so devastated when she permanently dumped him after their big argument. Those with an interest in unhappy Irish childhoods will love this section, but I was relieved to find it mercifully short, pages 187 to 202.

Part three: Léopoldville, November 1960

I.e. the Irish digression allows the narrative to leap six months forwards from May 1960 when we left it. It is now five months after independence was achieved (on 30 June 1960), after five months of chaos, army mutinies, riots, regional secessions, ethnic cleansing, economic collapse, all of which have led up to the first of Joseph-Désiré Mobutu’s coups, on 14 September.

The narration resumes five weeks after Mobutu’s coup. (It is important to be aware that Mobutu had himself been appointed the new Congo Army’s chief of staff by Lumumba himself and, when the troops mutinied 4 days after independence, he had been charged with dealing with the mutiny and then the series of nationwide crises which followed in quick succession. So Lumumba put his friend and former secretary into the position which he then used to overthrow, imprison and, ultimately, murder his old boss.)

As the chaos unfolded everyone told James to flee the country, as 30,000 Belgians did after the army mutiny and riots of July, but he stayed on and heard Mobutu declare his coup in September and arrest Lumumba.

Now the narrative follows James as he dines with Stipe, the American ambassador and other furtive Yanks, presumably CIA, who now dismiss Lumumba as a commie bastard. The historical reason for this is that Lumumba asked the UN for help putting down the secessionist movements in Katanga and Kasai and, when they sent a few peacekeepers but said they wouldn’t directly intervene, a panic-stricken Lumumba turned to the Soviet Union which immediately gave him guns and lorries and planes i.e. he wasn’t himself a communist, he was taking help from whoever offered it.

The conflict came to a head on the 14 September when the new nation had the surreal experience of hearing President Kasavubu on the radio sacking Lumumba as Prime Minister, followed an hour later by Prime Mininster Lumumba sacking President Kasavubu. It was this absurd political stalemate which Mobutu found himself called on to resolve. Hence he stepped in himself to take control and then, under pressure from the Belgians but especially the Americans, to place his former friend and boss under house arrest.

Knowing his days were numbered, Lumumba begged for UN protection, so – in the present which the novel is describing – his house is now surrounded by blue helmets, themselves surrounded by Congo Army forces. If the UN leaves, everyone knows Lumumba will be murdered, in much the way his followers are now being rounded up and liquidated.

Because this kind of schematic novel always reflects political events in personal events, it is no great surprise, in fact it feels utterly inevitable, when Stipe tells James that his lady love, Inès, is now ‘having an affair with’ Auguste, Stipe’s former chauffeur and friend, who has apparently risen to heights in Lumumba’s MNC having spent a month being indoctrinated in communist Czechoslovakia.

Right from the start of the novel we’ve been aware of James’s attraction to the solid, big-breasted, bigoted colon Madeleine. Now we learn that, on the rebound from Inès, James is fucking her shamelessly, alone in her big house, regularly. ‘Fuck’ is the operative word because Madeline enjoys BDSM and eggs James on to be rougher, harder, swear, shout abuse, slap her. Obviously he enjoys it at the time but later broods, despises himself and wishes he had Inès back.

The difference between the cruel sex with Madeleine and the sensual sex with Inès is as schematic as everything else in the novel and obviously signals the transition from the pre-independence spirit of optimism and the post-independence spirit of cynicism and violence.

Something happens half way through this final long section: the novel begins to morph into a thriller. Out of the blue Inès makes James’s deepest wish come true and contacts him… but not to beg forgiveness and say how much she loves him, but to turn up on his doorstep, collapsing from malaria and begging him to go fetch Auguste from the village outside Léopoldville where he’s hiding and bring him back into town so he can catch a secret flight from the airport which has been arranged by Egypt’s President Nasser to evacuate all MNC members (p.225).

So in the final 40 or so pages the novel turns into a thriller very much in the John le Carré vein, with fat bumbling, self-absorbed novelist suddenly finding himself in serious trouble with the authorities and forced to demonstrate something like heroism.

The tension is racked up for all it’s worth. Calling bland, imperturbable English doctor Roger to come and tend to Inès, James drives out to the village and finds Auguste, alright. He is disgusted when Auguste asks him to help him pack up his and Inès’s belongings from the room in the shanty house which they have obviously been sharing, where Auguste has been screwing her. James stares at the bed, his head full of queasy imaginings.

James hides Auguste in the boot as he drives back into town. He stops at Leo’s main hotel to phone Roger the doctor who is tending to Inès. It is in the hotel immediately after the call, that James is confronted by Stipe who for the first time is not friendly. He asks James twice if he knows where Auguste and both times James lies. Stipe knows James is lying but can’t prove it. James knows Stipe knows and becomes painfully self-conscious about every reply, wondering if his smile is too fake, if Stipe can see the sweat trickling down his brow. Stipe tells him he is being a fool, he is in way over his head, then says a contemptuous goodbye.

James walks back out the hotel to his car realising it’s too dangerous to take Auguste to his own apartment, which is probably being watched. He has a brainwave – Madeline! No-one would suspect the bigoted colon Madeleine of having anything to do with MNC freedom fighters (so Madeleine serves two narrative functions; symbolic dirty sex, and owner of safe house).

So James drives Auguste to Madeleine’s nice town house and, from there, phones his own flat and asks Roger to bring Inès there too. No-one will think of looking for them there. They’ll be safe till the plane arrives. Roger arrives with Inès. Good. Everyone is safe.

So, promising to return and take them to the airport, James drives back to his own house. And sure enough is greeted by a platoon of soldiers. He’s barely begun to protest his innocence before the captain in charge simply borrows a rifle from one of his men and hits James very hard in the side of his head with the rifle butt, kicking him in the guts on the way down, punching and slapping him till he vomits and wets himself. Stipe was right. He’s in way over his head.

He is thrown into the back of an army lorry, kicked and punched more, then dragged into a prison courtyard, along corridors and thrown into a pitch black cell, where he passes out.

He is woken and dragged to an interrogation room where he is presented with the corpse of Zoubir Smail, the Lebanese-born diamond merchant he met at Houthhoofd’s garden party. Smail has been beaten so that every inch of his body is covered with bruises and his testicles swollen up like cricket balls where they have been battered.

James is still reeling from this when the door opens and in comes Stipe, smooth as silk, to interrogate him. There’s no rough stuff, but Stipe psychologically batters him by describing in detail how Auguste fucks Inès, what a big dick he has, how Auguste once confided in Stipe once that he likes sodomy. Stipe forces James to imagine the sounds Inès must make when Auguste takes her from behind. It works. James is overcome with fury and jealousy but he repeatedly refuses to admit he knows where Auguste is. Not for Auguste’s sake, not for the damn ’cause’ – because he thinks being tight-lipped it will help him keep Inès.

Then, as abruptly as he was arrested, they release him, black soldiers dragging him along another corridor to a door, opening it and pushing him out into the street. Simple as that.

James staggers out into the sunlight and there’s Stipe waiting in a swish American car, offering him a friendly lift home, bizarre, surreal. But also telling him, in a friendly way, that he has three days to pack his stuff and leave the country. He apologises for subjecting him to the ordeal, but he was just doing his job.

Then, in the final chapter of this section, the narrative cuts to the scene the novel opened with. We learn that James was able to drive back to Madeleine’s, collect Inès and Auguste and drive them to the airport where they meet up with Lumumba and his people. Except no plane arrived from Egypt. Nothing. So the little convoy of MNC officials go int a huddle and decide to drive east, into the heart of the country, towards Lumumba’s native region where he will be able to raise a population loyal to him.

So they drive and drive, Auguste, Inés, James, Lumumba in a different car with his wife Pauline and young son Roland. But James is appalled at the way they dilly-dally at every village they come to, stopping to chat to the village elders, Lumumba unable to pass by opportunities to press the flesh and spread his charisma.

With the result that, as they arrive at the ferry crossing of the river Sankuru, Mobutu’s pursuing forces catch up with them, a detachment of soldiers and a tracker plane. Lumumba had successfully crossed the river with key followers, including Auguste, but leaving Pauline and Roland to catch it after it returns. But now the soldiers have grabbed her and his son. Everyone watches the figure on the other side of the river, will he disappear into the jungle or… then they see him step back onto the ferry and bid the ferryman steer it back over towards the soldiers. His wife shouts at him not to do it, Inès is in floods of tears, James is appalled.

And sure enough, the moment he steps off the ferry he is surrounded by soldiers who start to beat and punch him. The reader knows this is the start of the calvary which will lead, eventually, to one of Africa’s brightest, most charismatic leaders being flown to the remote city of Elizabethville, taken out into some god-forsaken field, beaten, punched and then executed his body thrown into a well.

James and Inès are released and make it back to Leo, where they immediately pack their things and take the ferry across the river to the freedom and sanity of the French Congo. Here they set up house together and live happily for weeks. Inès even deigns to have sex with poor, pitiful James.

But then one day she gets an AP wire that Lumumba has been murdered (17 January 1961). Mobutu had sent him to Katanga, allegedly for his own safety, but well aware he’d be done in. The official story is that Lumumba was set upon and massacred by villagers in revenge for the killing of their people by Lumumba’s tribe. But everyone knows the murder was committed by the authorities.

The final Congo scene is of Lumumba’s widow leaving the Regina hotel where she had gone to ask for her husband’s body back and walking down a central Boulevard Albert I with her hair shorn and topless, the traditional Congolese garb of mourning, and slowly the city’s civilians stop their work to join her.

James finds himself and Inès caught up in the crowd and then Inès lets go his hand and is swept away. It is another totally realistic but heavily symbolic moment, for the crowd is chanting Freedom and Independence and so it is perfect that Inès the idealist is carried away with it, becomes one with it – while James finds himself confronted by Stipe, furious that he lied to him, who punches him, hard, knocking him to the ground, where various members of the crowd stumble over him and he is in danger of being trampled. Always the clumsy stumbling outsider.

Until at the last moment he is lifted to his feet and dusted off by Charles, the reticent black servant who tended the house he had been renting in Leo. And with his symbolic separation from the love of his life, his near trampling by the Forces of Freedom, his beating up by the forces of capitalist America, and his rescue by one act of unprompted black kindness, the main narrative of the novel ends.

Part four: Bardonnecchia, August 1969

There is a seven page coda. It is 8 years later. James lives in Italy. He spends summer in this remote village up near the French border. In the evenings he dines at the Gaucho restaurant. The atmosphere is relaxed and the food is excellent. Of course it is. He knows the waiter and the owner and the pizza chef and the owner of the little bookshop on the other side of the railway line. Of course he does. Late in the evening he sits on chatting to some or all of them. In the absence of Inès his prose is back to its flat dulness.

This year Alan has come out to join me for a week. His reputation as a publisher has grown in tandem with mine as a writer. It is a moot point who has done more for whom. (p.306)

I help him aboard with his luggage and we shake hands. Alan has his ambitions, he can sometimes be pompous, but he is a good man. I am sad that he is going. (p.311)

Dead prose.

He tells us his most successful novel to date was the one about a middle-aged sex-mad novelist and his doomed affair for a passionately little Italian woman who climaxes easily. In other words, the one we’ve just read. A novel featuring a novelist describing how he wrote a novel describing the events he’s just described to us in his novel! How thrillingly post-modern! Or dull and obvious, depending on taste.

James is still obsessed by Inès. With wild improbability he hears her name mentioned by someone in the restaurant, asks about her and discovers she is now one of Italy’s premier foreign correspondents, writing angry despatches from Vietnam. People in novels like this are always eminent, successful, have passionate sex, know the right people, are at the heart of events.

Every morning he waits for the post but there has never been any letter from her. He is a sad sack. Why 1969? So Bennett can set this coda against the outbreak of violence in Northern Ireland. His mother and sister have joined the marchers for civil rights. Young men are throwing bricks and bottles at British soldiers. We know now this was to lead to 29 years of bloodshed, strife, murders, bombings and lawlessness. The world is not as we want it to be. What we want to happen, doesn’t. Marches for independence, marches for freedom have a tendency to end not just in bloodshed, but decades of bloodshed.

The novel ends on a note for the sensitive. The sad narrator knows he will now never see Inès again. I know. Tragedy. Cataclysm. After waving Alan off on the train back to London he takes a walk up the hill to be soulful and solitary. Inèes told him she could always be found among the marchers for freedom and justice. But he is trapped in his own disbelief:

She encouraged me, beckoned me forward. She promised that was where I’d find her. But I could never join her there. I was always too much a watcher, too much l’homme-plume; I was divided, unbelieving. My preference is the writer’s preference, for the margins, for the avoidance of agglomerations and ranks. I failed to find her and I know this failure will mark the rest of my life. (p.312)

I can imagine some readers bursting into tears at this sad and sensitive conclusion, but as I’ve given ample evidence, I found this entire ‘sensitive writer’ schtick clichéd, tiresome, self-centred, hackneyed, old and boring.

Bennett has taken the extraordinary history of the Congo and turned it into a schematic matrix of binary characters and simplistic symbols. Active v passive; male v female; idealistic v cynical; radical v reactionary. The Catastrophist is a good example of why I struggle to read contemporary novels; not because they’re about contemporary society so much as because they tend to wear their sensitive, soulful credentials on their sleeves and humble-brag about their bien-pensant, liberal, woke attitude.

And in doing so miss the dirty, uncomfortable, messy complexities of actual life and politics which don’t fit into any categories, whose ironic reversals defy neat pigeon-holing and clever symbolism.

The catastrophist

is James. It’s another example of Inès’ shaky grasp of English. She says there’s an Italian word, catastrofista which perfectly suits James, and they agree that ‘catastrophist’ is probably the nearest translation into English. Anyway, a ‘catastrophist’ always sees the dark side and thinks nothing can be fixed and uses this pessimism as an excuse for never trying to improve the world, to achieve justice and equality. That’s what she thinks James is.

‘If you are catastrofista no problem is small. Nothing can be fixed, it is always the end.’ (p.131)

And maybe he is. Who cares.

Thoughts

The Catastrophist is a slick well-made production which wears its bien-pensant, sensitive heart on its sleeve. By dint of repetition we come to believe (sort of) in old, disillusioned James aka Seumus and his forlorn love for passionate little (the adjective is used again and again) Inès.

The issues surrounding Congo independence are skilfully woven into the narrative, the mounting sense of crisis is cleverly conveyed through the escalation of incidents which start with a stone being thrown at his car, mount through minor riots to the hefty peace rally massacre, on to the horrifying scene of tribal massacre in Kisai, a litany of violence which, I suppose, climaxes with James being beaten up in the interrogation room and being confronted with the tortured corpse of someone he actually knows (Smail).

The thematic or character structure of the novel is howlingly obvious: Inès is on the side of the angels, the optimists, the independence parties, the clamourers for freedom and justice. James is very obviously the half-hearted cynic who tags along with her for the sake of his forlorn passion.

But it is the steely, hard, disdainful colon Madeleine who won my sympathy. During an early attempt to seduce James, as part of their sparring dialogue, she says if the Congolese ever win independence it will be a catastrophe. And it was. Sometimes the right-wing, racist, colonial bigots who are caricatured and mocked in the liberal press, liberal novels and liberal arts world – sometimes they were actually right.

For me, personally, reading this novel was useful because it repeated many of the key facts surrounding Congo independence from a different angle, and so amounted to a kind of revision, making key players and events that bit more memorable. For example, Bennett confirms David van Reybrouck’s comment about the sudden explosion of political parties in the run-up to the independence elections, their overnight emergence and febrile making and breaking of alliances. And he echoes van Reybrouck’s list of the common people’s illusions about independence. He has a good scene where an MNC candidate addresses a remote village and promises that, at independence, they will all be given big houses and the wives of the whites; that they will find money growing in their fields instead of manioc; that their dead relatives will rise from their graves (p.164).

So I enjoyed everything about the background research and a lot of the way Bennett successfully dramatises events of the period. You really believe you’re there. That aspect is a great achievement. The love affair between self-consciously writerly older writer and passionate young idealistic woman bored me to death.

Since the events depicted in the book, Congo underwent the 30-year dictatorship of Mobutu, more massacres and ethnic cleansing until the Rwandan genocide spilled out into the first and second Congo wars, the overthrow of Mobutu, the incompetent rule of Laurent Kabila and his assassination, followed by more years of chaos until recent elections promised some sort of stability. But the population of Congo at independence, when this novel was set, was 14 million. Today, 2021, it is 90 million and the median age is 19. The place and its people look condemned to crushing poverty for the foreseeable future.

The Catastrophist‘s imagining of the mood and events of the period it depicts are powerful and convincing. But in the larger perspective it seems like a white man’s fantasy about a period which is now ancient history to the majority of the country, and whose maudlin, self-pitying narrator is almost an insult to the terrible tribulations the country’s population endured and continue to face.

Credit

The Catastrophist by Ronan Bennett was published by REVIEW in 1998. All references are to the 1999 paperback edition.


Africa-related reviews

History

Fictions set wholly or partly in Africa

Exhibitions about Africa

Explorers of the Nile: the triumph and tragedy of a great Victorian adventure by Tim Jeal (2011) part two

‘[Dr Livingstone] left an obligation on the civilised nations of Europe and America, as the shepherds of the world, to extend their care and protection over the oppressed races of Africa.’
(Henry Morton Stanley in his obituary of Livingstone published in the Graphic magazine, 1873)

Expeditions covered in the second half of the book

  • Stanley’s expedition to find Livingstone, 1871 to 1872
  • Livingstone’s final expedition, 1872 to 1873
  • Stanley’s great expedition across Africa from East to West, 1874 to 1879
  • Stanley working for King Leopold II of Belgium, 1879 to 1885
  • The Emin Pasha Relief Expedition, 1886 to 1889

This is the third version of the meeting between Welsh workhouse boy-turned-American journalist Henry Morton Stanley and famous Scottish missionary and explorer Dr David Livingstone which I have read, and arguably the most effective.

This is because, in the preceding chapter (chapter 18) Jeal had given a clear and vivid description of how utterly prostrate Livingstone was, his obsession with tracing the river Lualaba crushed by porters paid by Arab slavers to refuse to accompany him, forced to return to the miserable slaver town of Ujiji on the west bank of Lake Tanganyika where he discovered that all the trading goods and supplies which had been carefully selected, bought and sent to him by Dr John Kirk, British consul in Zanzibar, had been treacherously sold off by the Arab in charge of delivering them, so that all his native porters abandoned him, leaving the man penniless, betrayed, abandoned and completely demoralised by the complete failure of his expedition to the Lualaba, the crushing of all his hopes as an explorer. That is the moment when Henry Morton Stanley walked into his compound, accompanied by hundreds of porters laden with supplies. So the reader understands why the meeting came as such a huge psychological relief to both men.

As to Stanley’s epic trek across Africa which revealed for the first time that the Luabala was a tributary of the Congo, I have covered that in my review of Jeal’s biography of Stanley.

The origins of the Nile and what is an ‘origin’?

On reflection, I think Jeal would have done better to have started this book with a factual description of the actual geography of the Nile, carefully explaining what we now understand of its modern course; because, with this information imprinted on our minds, the reader would be much better placed to understand the importance of all the discoveries and theories bandied about by the explorers whose expeditions he describes over the next 350 pages.

It is only on page 316, in the context of Stanley proving once and for all that the river Luabala did not flow north and east to form a tributary of the Nile, but instead flowed north and west to become the main tributary of the Congo, thus, in effect, confirming Speke’s discovery that the northern outlet of Lake Victoria is the origin of the White Nile – it is only here that Jeal, almost casually, comes clean and explains the entire modern understanding of the multiple sources of the Nile, referencing subsequent expeditions, in 1891, 1898, 1935, and as recently 2006, which have traced its origins further and further into obscure watercourses in Rwanda and Burundi.

And it is only tucked away in the heart of his book, that he raises a central question which is: How do you define the source of a river? Eventually all major rivers splinter into tributaries which themselves divide into contributory creeks and streams and springs and so on. How many do you include? How do you define The Source? Apparently Stanley said that, if you go that far, it was only a small step to attributing the origins of a river to the clouds passing overhead and the rain that falls.

Jeal, like the explorers, is happy to stop at the assertion that Lake Victoria is the source of the White Nile.

Some incidents

Stanley on the Congo

Stanley’s work for King Leopold II of Belgium, building a road up the river Congo, establishing way stations, transporting sections of steam ships along it which could be assembled above the Congo’s fearsome rapids, are all placed in the context of establishing the infrastructure for the wicked Congo Free State which Leopold was seeking to establish (described in detail in chapter 28).

De Brazza

Stanley’s work for Leopold is also placed in the context of international rivalry with France embodied by the attempts of French explorer Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza to claim the north side of the river Congo . This led, among other incidents, to the confrontation at Stanley Pool with Brazza, who had soldiers and tried to claim the south bank of the Congo for France. It was only by the resolute action of the British station chief at Kinshasa, young Anthony Swinburne, that the region, and what would go on to become Congo’s capital, remained in Leopold’s control.

The Congo situation was to be stabilised at the 1885 Conference of Berlin by the formal assignment of the vast region of the Congo to Leopold’s personal fief. Jeal covers all this but, because his focus is the Nile, he is most interested in the fate of central and East Africa.

Muslim versus Christian

Here the deep structural issue was whether the region would fall under Muslim or Christian domination. The Christian British were, in a sense, biased, identifying the cause of civilisation and progress with themselves and their religion. But most of the Brits involved knew the simple fact that Islam represented slavery, because east central Africa was being laid waste by a slave trade carried out entirely by Muslim Arabs, seizing black African slaves to ship them to the Arab Middle East, destroying entire villages, laying waste to areas, shooting slaves who were too weak or ill to trek the thousand miles to the coast.

Samuel Baker founds Equatoria

This is why those concerned for the region didn’t want it to fall under the control of Egypt, because Egyptian control would almost certainly involve the extension of slavery into the region of the Great African Lakes, Buganda, Bunyoro and so on.

Nonetheless, it was the noted explorer Sir Samuel White who penetrated south on the Nile with a host of soldiers and riverboats given by the Khedive of Egypt, and simply declared, without consulting any of the native rulers, the existence of a new southern province of Egypt which he named Equatoria, in May 1871.

This incident, peripheral to the quest for the source of the Nile, would go on to have long-term political ramifications which echo to this day.

Retreat to Fatiko

When Baker attempted to penetrate further south, he was met with fierce resistance from the army of king Kabarega of Banyoro and was forced to stage a fighting retreat to Fatiko, one of those defeats in the face of stronger African foes which were to be presented as a kind of moral victory in the British press (Isandlwana, 1879, Gordon and the Khartoum garrison massacred, 1885).

According to Jeal, it was the publicity surrounding Baker’s military expedition which first really publicised to many politicians and businessmen the geographic and commercial potential of opening up central Africa.

Stanley’s call for missionaries

This is why one of the most important events of the period was Stanley writing a letter, in May 1875, which was published in the Daily Telegraph, saying that the region was crying out for Christian missionaries to set up schools, educate the locals, encourage Western style trade, with a view to stamping out slavery and other barbarous practices like human sacrifices, to develop and raise the living standards of Africans. And the numerous missionary societies of Britain responded (p.302).

Almost inevitably, when the missionaries came, they faced the same kind of antagonism and sometimes horrific violence which the explorers had faced or witnessed but, by and large survived, because the latter had guns and were moving through, not settling in, dangerous territories.

Atrocities against missionaries

In January 1885 Mwanga king of Buganda, arrested the missionary Mackay and had three of his young black converts taken from the mission school, their arms hacked off, and then slowly roasted to death on a spit (p.348). In October 1885 Bishop James Hannington who had been sent by the CMS to become the first bishop of East Africa, was arrested by Mwanga and speared to death along with all 50 of his porters (p.349). On 30 June 1886 Mwanga arrested and executed 45 Catholic and Protestant converts, strangling several with his own hands, having the others castrated and burned alive (p.349).

These sorts of atrocities inevitably caused outrage in the newspapers and forced European governments to step in ‘and so something’ to protect our gallant missionaries. Thus the 1890s saw a wave of annexations and mandates, Malawi in 1892, Uganda declared a protectorate on 27 August 1894.

Rivalry with Germany

It must also be noted that, if the British endured a rivalry with a France determined to push east from their West African possessions, beyond Chad, across the desert and into Egyptian and Sudanese territory, and south as far as the Congo, the British also faced rivalry with Germany in East Africa.

Chancellor Bismarck sent envoys to sign deals with local rulers, amassing influence over such a large area that eventually it justified a full-blown diplomatic agreement between the two governments, in 1886, which secured for Germany the southern portion of the region which was to become Tanganyika, and present-day Tanzania.

In response, the British government approved the granting of a royal charter to Sir William Mackinnon’s Imperial British East Africa Company, sowing the seeds of what was to evolve into Uganda and Kenya (pages 362 to 363).

Wikipedia has two maps which vividly contrast territorial ‘ownership’ of Africa in 1880 and 1913, before and after the great ‘scramble for Africa’. Apart from showing the obvious way in which an entire continent was gobbled up by half a dozen European powers, the two things which stand out for me are 1. The extent of French possession, coloured blue. 2. The fact that German East Africa (dark grey) presented an impassible obstacle to imperialists like Cecil Rhodes who wanted to create one unified band of British colonies stretching the length of Africa. How frustrated he must have been!

Political geography of Africa 1880 and 1913. Source: Wikipedia

The Emin Pasha relief expedition 1886 to 1889

I’ve summarised the Emin Pasha Relief Expedition in my summary of Jeal’s Stanley biography. Suffice to say that, as in his descriptions of Livingstone’s two last expeditions or Stanley’s trans-Africa trek, arguably the summaries Jeal gives in this book are better than the ones in the Stanley book because they are much shorter, much punchier, and focus on the key events and decisions: I understood the importance of Stanley’s fateful decisions during the Emin Pasha expedition much better from the 10-page summary given in this book (pages 365 to 375) than from the several chapters devoted to it in the Stanley biography which, for me, buried the important things in a sea of details. In particular, the notorious moral collapse of the Rear Column into Kurz-like barbarism is much more vivid when compressed onto just two pages (pages 371 to 372).

Royal Navy anti-slavery

It gets very little publicity but the British government tasked the Royal Navy with maintaining squadrons whose sole purpose was to intercept slave ships and quell the ocean-borne slave trade.

During the nineteenth century, 17,000 members of the Royal Navy died as a result of their service with the West and East African Anti-Slave Trade Squadrons. (p.362)

Part two

Part two of Jeal’s book is titled ‘The Consequences’ and deals with just that, the long term consequences of all this imperial jostling for African territory at the end of the nineteenth century. I’d read almost all the stories Jeal tells of the earlier expeditions in his biography of Stanley or Frank McLynn’s book about African exploration. Part two of Jeal’s book leaves all that Victoriana behind to deal with the dawning era of state-sponsored exploration. It broadens out to be about the general Scramble for Africa during the 1880s and beyond – to my surprise, to a great deal beyond – in some instances (Sudan and Uganda) bringing the story right up to date, with summaries not only of their twentieth century histories, but their post-colonial political histories right up to the year the book was published, 2011.

Sudan

In both countries Jeal says the British made a series of fateful mistakes. In Sudan it was yoking together the utterly different Muslim Arabs of the north with the African animists and Christians of the south. Since the British got on better with the Arabs, who had more Western-friendly economic and social systems, the northerners inherited most of the political, economic and military levers of power and looked down on the black African southerners. Jeal singles out the British commissioner Sir Harold MacMichael (served 1916 to 1933) for refusing to even visit the south for his first seven years in post and then being so shocked by its primitive condition that he perversely refused to encourage investment in it.

All this made it almost inevitable that, once the country was granted independence, many in the south would want their own government. South Sudan tried to secede in 1955, leading to a civil war which continued on and off for over 60 years until South Sudan gained its independence as a nation state in July 2011. (With depressing inevitability a civil war then broke out within south Sudan in 2013 which lasted till last year, 2020.)

In other words, the long term consequence of Britain drawing the borders of the territory as it did, and administering it as it did, was long term instability, war and suffering.

Uganda

The other major British error Jeal lingers on, was not retaining the region of Equatoria, claimed and invented by Baker in 1872 in the name of the Khedive of Egypt, as a distinct country.

Although it contained numerous tribes, the inhabitants of Equatoria had the advantage of being related by language and tradition. Instead the British made the disastrous mistake of dividing Equatoria along a horizontal line through the middle and assigning the northern half to Sudan and the southern half to Uganda, a decision taken by Sir Harry Johnston in 1899. Jeal goes into some detail as to how the inclusion of the Equatorial kingdoms, of Baganda in particular, helped to unbalance the tribal makeup of Uganda from the start.

Jeal gives a brisk summary of Uganda’s history after it gained independence from Britain in 1962, namely: the rise of a typical African dictator or Big Man, Milton Obote; a crisis caused by how to handle the semi-independent nation of Buganda within Uganda: Obote suspends the constitution in a 1966 coup and rules as a dictator until he was overthrown by his military leader Idi Amin, who himself emerged as a murderous tyrant ruling for 8 years until himself overthrown when the army of neighbouring Tanzania along with Ugandan exiles invaded and restored Obote for the next 6 years (1980 to 1986). Currently Uganda is ruled by former general Yoweri Museveni, who overthrew the previous regime in 1986 and has ruled a one-party state ever since.

Summarising the plight of both countries, Jeal says:

Britain should have stayed longer in Sudan and Uganda, should have spent more money there and better prepared these countries for independence. (p.418)

The case for intervention

In his final pages Jeal recapitulates the case for European intervention in the area of central Africa he’s been describing. One of the central motives was to stamp out the slave trade which the big five explorers he focuses on (Livingstone, Burton, Speke, Grant and Stanley) witnessed, described and railed against with passion and persistence.

Jeal argues that if the Christian European nations had not intervened in central Africa, the area would not have remained a pristine paradise, as some anti-colonialists claim. It had already been heavily despoiled by the Arab slave trade which was encroaching deeper and deeper into the interior with every year, bringing devastation, mass murder and enslavement.

The whole of central equatorial Africa would have become part of the Muslim world, with slavery an inescapable part of it, unless the colonial powers had come to stay. (p.430)

On this reading the case against the Europeans isn’t that they colonised Africa, as such. Jeal goes out of his way to assert that the British in particular did bring impartial justice, schools, education, railways, roads and economic development which lifted most Africans out of grinding poverty to levels of affluence and literacy inconceivable only a few generations earlier.

No, the case against the European colonialists is that they made terrible decisions about borders and administrative regions, tried to run their colonies on the cheap, ignored native traditions and chieftains and kingdoms in preference for a British style central administration and parliamentary democracy and that, when they handed all this over to African rulers in the 1960s, it quickly became obvious that the countries couldn’t be ruled by Westminster-style politics, but only from the barrel of a gun in the hands of the country’s strongest institution – the army.

The criticism is not that Britain colonised Africa. It’s that the British did it so badly. Upon independence, the continent’s 3,000 ethnic groups ended up divided up into 47 nation states. Colonialism lasted just long enough to destroy centuries-old beliefs in animism, spirits and personal responsibility, but not long enough to imprint the universal literacy and faith in education which underpins the success of the West. The complete inappropriateness of imposing a Westminster-style parliamentary system onto nations with radically different traditions and definitions of power and authority, led almost all of them to collapse and be replaced by the rule of Big Men backed by the army. In the mid-1990s there were 31 civil wars raging in Africa, resulting either from the terribly drawn boundaries or the deliberate incitements of Big Men (p.434).

Responsibility

It seems to me attributing ‘responsibility’ or ‘guilt’ for the dire post-independence fates of many African nations is pointless. Identifying errors and mistaken decisions with a view to avoiding them in future or using the analysis to try and address current problems might be a worthwhile activity. But blaming some white guy for what he said or wrote 150 years ago seems futile. It’s only a form of self-promoting rhetoric and psychological bonding for the righteous who like to make those kind of criticisms. Blaming ‘the white man’ or ‘the West’ or ‘Europe’ hardly seems very practical to me.

As Jeal candidly admits, the violent and semi-genocidal actions of the Islamic government in Khartoum dwarf anything the colonial authorities ever did. Similarly, Idi Amin’s regime undertook large-scale repression of sections of Uganda’s population, which may led to as many as 500,000 deaths and the wholescale expulsion of the country’s entire Asian population (30,000 came to the UK, some 10,000 to other western nations).

The idea that what exactly Speke said to Burton in Aden 150 years ago is given more space in the book than the massacres commissioned by the governments of Sudan and Uganda almost amounts to a subtle kind of racism, or at the very least, bias, whereby what one white man said or wrote 150 years ago is considered more important than the death of 100,000 Africans in the recent past.

To put it another way, once your mind is contemplating the murderous post-independence regimes of Sudan or Uganda, being concerned about what exactly Speke said to Burton 150 years ago seems absurd and irrelevant. In a way the brutal realities Jeal describes in the last 30 or 40 pages of his book, make the entire account of the Victorian explorers seem like a fairy tale, like a weightless fiction, like Alice in Wonderland.

Attributing some kind of responsibility to the colonial authorities who took bad decisions from the late 1890s through to the 1950s is probably a more worthwhile activity, but Jeal zips through this final part of the book at top speed. The colonial and post-independence history of two nations like Sudan and Uganda are just too big and complex to be managed in such a short space, and by an author who is much more at home investigating Stanley’s father complex or Baker’s love for his slave wife. In other words, is happier retailing ripping yarns of Victorian derring-do than giving a dryer, cold-blooded analysis of contemporary African politics.

Still, I suppose it’s to Jeal’s credit that he doesn’t just end the book with the fiasco of the Emin Pasha Relief Expedition in 1889, as he might have done but makes an attempt to bring it up to date, skimpy though it feels.

Up until the last 40 or so pages Explorers of the Nile: the triumph and tragedy of a great Victorian adventure is full of extraordinary stories of Victorian heroism and endurance, illness and obsession. It is entirely fitting that this book was turned into a series of BBC Radio 4. It has exactly that Radio 4 feel of comforting, white bourgeois, public school nostalgia. And if you’re in that kind of mood, why not? But the harsh realities described in the final passages make you realise that that world – of dashing Victorian chaps – only really survives between the covers of this kind of Radio 4-friendly history.

Logocentrism

Mind you, this aspect of Jeal’s book, namely the foregrounding of European written accounts over African oral or unrecorded accounts, is a subset of the larger bias embedded in Western practice, which is the privileging of the written word.

Livingstone, Burton, Speke, Grant and Stanley are the subject of so many books not only because they are such epitomes for those who like tales of Victorian adventure, but because they wrote so much and so much of it is stored in libraries and archives. This presents potentially endless opportunities for each generation of biographers to rework the sources and present new versions of their lives. It guarantees a steady little cottage industry which keeps their names in the public eye, sort of (among fans of this kind of thing at any rate).

Whereas where are the biographies of the Africans they met, of King Kamrasi of the Bunyoro or King Mutesa of the Baganda, to name a couple of the most notable? What of all the other chieftains and leaders, let alone their hundreds of thousands of subjects?

There is a profound structural inequality not just in the fact that the West or, in this case, Britain, with its public schoolboy taste for foreign adventure encouraged by its public schoolboy publishing and public schoolboy bookselling industries, will carry on writing, publishing and consuming books of imperial derring-do for the foreseeable future and getting them comfortably serialised on Radio 4. But in the way that we in the West foreground writing and written sources, written accounts and written description, journals, diaries, letters and every form of text over other types of record or history (predominantly oral).

In this deep sense, the very way the subject of history is conceived and practiced in the West militates against cultures with alternative methods of recording the past. Consigns them to eternal silence and subordinateness.

The sources of the Nile

My major practical criticism of the book isn’t any of these: you get what you pay for and Jeal delivers an intelligent and pacy account of the five great Victorian explorers of Africa.

But I think even on its own terms, the book would have benefited from a better explanation of the actual sources of the Nile, which are only partly explained in a throwaway few pages around page 316. I had to google the subject to find out what current knowledge on the sources of the Nile is (and to be surprised that, right up to the present day, explorers are still claiming to have found the ‘real’ source, tucked away in the rainforests of Rwanda, so that there is still, surprisingly, scholarly debate on the subject). I think this could have been stated and explained, with maps, much more clearly; and that, on balance, the best place to have put it would have been at the start so the reader had the clearest sense possible of the geography, before commencing the accounts of the explorations.

Chief Cammorro’s view

‘Most people are bad; if they are strong they take from the weak. The good people are all weak; they are good because they don’t have the strength to be bad.’

The words of Cammorro, chief of the Latuka, as quoted by the explorer Sir Samuel Baker, who is not necessarily a reliable witness and who, possibly, put into the chief’s mouth his own hard-bitten and cynical views. But in the context of the violent Africa described in this book, very apposite whoever exactly said it.

Credit

Explorers of the Nile: the triumph and tragedy of a great Victorian adventure by Tim Jeal was published  by Faber and Faber in 2011. All references are to the 2012 paperback edition.


Africa-related reviews

History

Fictions set wholly or partly in Africa

Exhibitions about Africa