John Banville’s Snow was resplendent at number one
best seller in the airport bookstore. At the time, I hardly noticed, since I
was immediately and irresistibly attracted to the author’s name, knowing that
whatever the subject, the writing would be exquisite. It is.
Snow is a novel that initially reminded me of a Gothic
fantasy such as Gormenghast. Larger than life, or perhaps smaller than reality
characters wander in and out of a plot, each displaying their own brand of
quirkiness, their own brand of learned psychological deformity that in everyday
circumstances we might consider normality. But under the soft-focus gaze of
inspector Strafford - that’s Strafford
with an ‘r’, by the way, not Stafford - they each seem to magnify into the
unwanted status of potential suspect.
By now you will have gathered that Snow is a whodunit,
or a murder mystery, as they are sometimes called. The book opens with Strafford’s
arrival at a Protestant, somewhat less than stately home in county Wexford,
Ireland, where a Catholic priest has been murdered. The circumstances are
particularly gruesome.
No one, it has to be said, seems particularly
surprised or even bothered, until surfaces are scratched. And so, Strafford
sets about solving the crime. We are in the 1950s and religious divisions still
characterize the culture and politics of life in this young republic. It’s Christmas or thereabouts and it’s
snowing. Hence the title. The snow does contribute to the plot, by the way.
Strafford’s style is laid-back in the extreme. He tends
to offer a little, waiting for those he questions to hang themselves on the
rope he figuratively offers. Some do, some don’t,
all non-definitively. To John Banville’s credit,
it was sometime before I realized that I was reading what amounted to genre fiction.
So beautiful was the style, so poignant were the observations of character and
particularly of place that I began to drift with the snow, only gently
realizing that these characters gradually were morphing into the stereotypes
needed to feed the plot.
As with any whodunit, the plot is probably everything,
though I must admit when I read such work, I really could not care less who
might have done it because, as Tom Stoppard pointed out in The Real Inspector Hound,
or the stage adaptation of the Mousetrap repeated, it could have been any of
them. We know it will be one of the assembled characters, because for a writer
to introduce a stranger at the end of a tale as the culprit might just get too
close to reality to be called the make-believe of genre, despite its often-overdone
realism.
What constitutes plot will not be revealed here.
Neither will this review describe characters because, as is so often the case
with genre fiction, quirks of character or behaviour feed the all-important
plot. Suffice it to say that Strafford solves the mystery and identifies a culprit
who, as it turns out, probably wasn’t the murderer.
Three quarters of the way in and still engaged with
the scenario in the 1950s, however, John Banville jumps back ten years and
introduces a section in a completely new style, written from a very point of
view, a perspective that has not been suggested previously. When completed, it
is immediately obvious that all of this could have been accomplished via allusions
in the dialogue. The problem for genre is that the message conveyed would have
to be suggested or implied and the form required something more explicit. For
this reader, the section destroyed the flow of the book and was just too
obvious to need stating at all. It dealt with the past of the priest victim, and,
by the end, all the reader could ask was “Is the Pope Catholic”?
But then we then return to the 1957 of the principal
story and realise that perhaps in that decade, the answer to the question might
just have been debatable. The interlude, however, prepares the reader for a
particular turn of events which, when it happens, is rendered a tad
predictable.
Then, having identified the principal culprit, John
Banville takes us forward ten years to re-encounter a character from that Protestant
family in Wexford, who then offers a different story that has remained hidden
for a decade. Strafford, of course, knew all along, though he never bothered to
tell anyone. And as far as the current reader is concerned, this sudden drift
towards the explicit and the truth seems to present a trait that, for the
character concerned, might have appeared out of character. And what could
possibly be gained by such a change of heart?
I was reminded I was in the realm of genre fiction, where
the plot is all and ends have to be tied up. The overall effect was still
satisfying, but for this reader the problems always associated with genre
fiction had again become apparent, though still bearable. I could, however,
always be wrong! I refer back to the start of this review. Had John Banville
produced another literary work, it might not of been in the place where I found
it, under the title No1 in an airport bookstall. At least it was worth reading.