Great essay by AS Byatt about her thought process while creating and writing Possession
This part amazed me:
There was a huge problem. I knew that modern forms were parodic- not only Eco, but the intelligent criticism of Malcolm Bradbury had been pointing that out – parodic, not in a sneering or mocking way, but as “rewriting” or “representing” the past. The structural necessity of my new form was that the poems of my two poets, the most important thing about them in my own view, should be in this no-longer ghostly text. And I am not a poet, and novelists who write poems usually come to grief. Robertson Davies, the Canadian novelist, had written a novel with a parodic libretto in fact made up of the poems of Thomas Lovell Beddoes. I said to the poet D.J.Enright at a party, that I was contemplating using the early poems of Pound that look as though they could be by Browning. “Nonsense,” he said. “Write your own.”
So I tried. My mind has been full since childhood of the rhythms of Tennyson and Browning, Rossetti and Keats. I read and reread Emily Dickinson, whose harsher and more sceptical voice I found more exciting than Christina Rossetti’s meek resignation. I wanted a fierce female voice. And I found I was possessed – it was actually quite frightening – the nineteenth-century poems that were not nineteenth-century poems wrote themselves, hardly blotted, fitting into the metaphorical structure of my novel, but not mine, as my prose is mine.
It amazes me because frankly, that is how it feels when I read the book. The poems are certainly not to the level of Dickinson or anything like that- but they are good enough. Good enough to convey that they could possibly be “real”. That is what is needed to give the book its authenticity, its whiff of reality. You have to feel like you are reading someone else’s work, looking through someone else’s old letters … the author herself must disappear in this type of novel. And yet … she doesn’t. That’s part of Byatt’s trickery. That’s part of the point she is making, about writers, about the writing of biographies, about literary research … What IS invisible? What IS literary possession? What is left unsaid? We only have the treasure trove of the author’s actual WORDs … but what did he or she leave unsaid? You can see how literary theorists can become “possessed” by this kind of thinking (Byatt mentions the driving urge to dig up George Eliot’s grave to get the letters that were buried with her). There is a sense that all CAN be known. Which is obviously untrue – because how can we ever know everything about a life? Isn’t so much of life in what is between the lines?? To learn that Byatt was not a poet is quite extraordinary – but again, I am not surprised. I have read this book over and over, and I never skip the long long poems (some of them are 10, 12 pages long), although you would think I might. Because what you’re seeing there on the page IS an act of possession – and it really shows. Two different poets, speaking with two different voices, written in the styles of the 19th century. It is an extraordinary feat.
I also love all the bits about colors – how as the book developed in her mind the colors for it changed:
There is a Gothic plot, I thought, of violence and skulduggery. The Gestalt got more lurid, purple, black, vermilion, with flying white forms.
The green and gold of Maud … how she shimmers with the golden hair and all that … the deep dark dirt of the ending scene …
But to read about how carefully she constructed all of that is really inspirational.
wow. that essay is amazing. i love reading about her process. the fact that the first germs of the novel were already being filed away in that corner of her mind in the late sixties! and then it gestated for decades. (speaking of possession…)
it makes me want to read the book again, it’s been almost ten years since i read it. but i’ll never forget that last scene.
Oh Erik. I know. That last scene. God.
And I know – to think that the book was percolating for that long. Her early novels are pretty bad, actually – some great writing, but really heady, intellectual exercises – not engaging at all (in my opinion). I have them all, and I read them … but it’s almost like with Possession she literally burst forth out of her shell fully formed. There were a couple of early stiff self-conscious novels – and then THAT. Amazing.
I’ve never been able to read another Byatt book, oddly. I own several, but Possession was the first one I read, and it’s such a perfect heart-stopping book that I think I’ve always been afraid of being let down and so I’ve just stayed away. I’m not saying this was a conscious thing–after all, whenever I see a book of hers at a used bookstore, I’ll buy it and put it on my bookshelves at home with what I believe is the intention of reading it…but I never pick up the other Byatt books. And how I love Possession! So I wonder if I’m afraid of that letdown.
Have you read Katherine Dunn’s Attic? Geek Love is one of my favorite books ever and I was so excited to read Attic and then when I did I thought it was such a muddled mess.
(I know you love Geek Love. I used to give that book to people all the time as gifts and most of my friends have loved it, but a few were totally put off by it, and that shocked me, and now I kind of look at them suspiciously, like: HOW COULD YOU NOT LOVE GEEK LOVE? I DON’T KNOW YOU.)
Don’t read any of other Byatt’s books – you will be let down. Or – go ahead and read them if you want – but I think Possession was THE book she was meant to write – and everything else was just practice or the aftermath. I’ve read ’em all – and nothing comes close to Possession!!!
And I think you and I are kindred spirits. No, I have not read Attic for just the reason you state – Geek Love made such an impact that I just don’t want my fantasy ruined. I don’t want to become aware of an author with flaws, who sometimes fails … i want to sit in the perfection of that one piece of work.
Geek Love. Holy GOD. What a book.
Oh, Possession is one of my favorite books ever! I’ve read it four times now, and I still cry.
As for the poetry, all I can say is I never questioned it– it felt authentic. And the era of poetry she’s evoking is one I’ve been fond of since childhood– weird how she can make me nostalgic for poetry I’d never read before.
But some of the short stories within the story! In particular, the story about the dancing boy who brings the proud girl a ribbon– gives me goosebumps every time.
And then there’s the whole question of deconstruction– within the work of the 80’s era academics, within what they explore in the past, within the past itself, within the very structure of the novel itself.
There are so many ways to read this book.
Oh, cool, I’ll have to read that. I liked Possession, but I thought it needed a better editor–like she came up with stuff that she couldn’t bear to cut. Plus I encountered Arcadia first, and I liked it better. The idea is used in very different ways in the two, but I can’t help making the comparison. I should try reading it again, though, as it’s been a couple of years.
Oh, and if you loved “Geek Love”, you should consider reading “Cruddy”, by Lynda Barry.
I can’t explain why the two are linked in my head, but they are.
roo – I loved the creepy little fairy tales that Christabel wrote with Blanche’s illustrations. And yeah – it felt authentic to me, too. The “dolly hides a secret” poem always gives me goosbumps – mainly because it is the key that leads Roland and Maud to the letter cache.
And yeah – it has a lot to say about lit crit, and the whole deconstructionist phase of literary theory. It’s fascinating. If you go back and look at the first scene where Roland and Maud meet – both of them talk about their “subjects” as though they are true experts. As though there can be no mystery about either of them , or the literary interpretations. Well, Christabel was a lesbian so she obviously was a pre-feminist and all of her work must be interpreted as such … Byatt is quite brutal in her assessment of that kind of limited literary theory. It’s so refreshing.
But yeah – there are a lot of differnt ways to read the book. When I first read it I was recovering from a love affair which seemed like it SHOULD have worked (and, on some level, it still does seem like it should have worked) – so for me, the book was all about love. All about love.
The scene at the end where Maud breaks down her barriers – or, Roland HELPS her to break down her barriers – was so meaningful to me the first time I read it. Because I was in the process of putting my heart on ice.
Harriet – Arcadia is an amazing play. It’s hard to believe that dramatically they could pull that off – having the past bleed into the present – and vice versa – without being all heady, or a gimmick, but it so works. I read that play for pleasure – and there are very few plays I can say that of. And I read plays all the time, but it’s for my job!!
And er – God forbid Byatt had a better editor – because what you think should have been cut might have been my favorite section!! :)
roo – never heard of Cruddy – I’ll have to check it out!
Well, like I said, I should read it again–I’m only 24, and views can change a lot in two years of young adulthood! I did think it was good, just that all the different “primary sources” were–bloated, maybe?–anyway, I thought it hurt, or at least, hid, the narrative. It doesn’t help that I don’t really like Dickinson, of course. My interests lie more with the early modern metaphysical poets like Donne. I did find the story compelling, though. Maybe, if I get to go home this weekend, I’ll bring the book back here with me to school.
Harriet – haha, no, I was just teasing you!! Funny thing is: I have recommended this book to a ton of people and maybe 1 out of 10 really loved it. I think (like I said) it might have had to do with my mindset at the time I first read it – when I was trying to make sense of this trainwreck that had just happened to me – a love affair that SHOULD have ended happily … and this book somehow led me through that. That last scene hit home SO HARD because of that.
Since then I have read the book and seen other things in it – not taken it so personally – but it’s definitely something I go back to again and again.
It’s amazing how intensely we can relate to books, isn’t it? The Lord Peter books are like that for me (as you can probably tell by my pseudonym). I love them passionately and beyond all reason. That would probably explain why I’m in library school now–I want to help others find books like that. You’ve got me all curious to reread now, though. I mean, what if a patron comes in and it would be the perfect book for her, but I’m not able to recommend it in glowing enough terms for her to try it because my memories are clouding my judgement? Disaster! (A bit melodramatic, but you get the point.)
I think I’ll stay away from her other books. I’ll just leave them in the “B” section of my bookcase and when I see them there in all of their volume, it’ll remind me of the simple truth that sometimes greatness just takes practice, practice, practice.
Geek Love is a glorious book. I was trying to think of the best word for it and I think “glorious” works. I read it on this very random road trip with my father and my three brothers and I can’t remember where we went, I just remember driving and sitting in the backseat, squished against the window, alternately laughing out loud and crying and my brothers looking at me like I was crazy.
This comment thread made me want to list my top five favorite novels (listed alphabetically, because I can’t give them a pecking order) (and this list could be different tomorrow, but off the top of my head now, they are):
Crime and Punishment
Geek Love
Lolita (or Pale Fire)
Possession
White Teeth
Oh my god, though, I just realized I didn’t include A Prayer For Owen Meany on that list and that’s a crime. But I don’t want to kick anything off right now. Dammit. Maybe I’ll have to make it a top ten list. Later. Now I’m off to bed.
White Teeth? Loved it. Loved On Beauty even more. There’s a Howard’s End parallel in there that is awesome. She’s unbearably talented.
Sheila, this post on Byatt is such a great example of why I love your blog. You can have people hashing out Project Runway one day, and waxing crazy about Byatt the next. So great. What you wrote (and what other people posted) makes me want to read her book again. I loved it the first time. (Remember our bonding over the wife’s freakout? That image of her is still so clear to me, and so unbelievably sad.) On a totally different note, you have been on my mind lately because I just started Doris K Goodwin’s book on Lincoln and his cabinet. Great, but depressing. That whole notion of wanting to be surrounded by your rivals and craving their input. . . I wish that still happened (in places other than the editorial page and This Week With George Stephanopoulos.)
Kate – totally – I still remember our conversation about Randolph’s wife and how much it … just rocked us to the core. Her huddling in the corner on the honeymoon? His gentleness, but also his confusion – and also his resignation … Man. See that’s the kind of thing that cannot (usually) be included in biographies – because nobody records that stuff. That’s part of what Byatt is getting at. You may THINK you know your subject – but there will always be something left in the shadows.
But man … the mystery of that, the true sadness of that marriage – the compromise … but also the sweetness. My heart hurts just thinking about it. Poor Ellen. Poor Randolph.
I am re-reading Possession right now – I started it last night. What I love about it, too, is that it’s all literary and stuff like that – but it’s also a really fun mystery story, with clues, and stuff like that – and also a sweeping and emotional romance. For me, it works on all those levels.
I love it when Val eventually finds a lover who makes her happy … member poor sad “menial” Val?? But then when she leaves Roland and finds a boyfriend who makes her happy – I can’t remember the words Byatt uses, but something like – Roland noticing that Val had some sort of new glimmer of self-satisfaction about her that could only come from having good sex. Although, naturally, Byatt used MUCH better language than I just did. But I thought that was a very astute observation.
Oh and Erik – favorite books? I always get all flustered when I have to choose!
I can’t do 5. It’s too stressful.
I would say that my top 10 favorite novels are (and I know I’ve left some of my faves off):
Crime and Punishment
Jane Eyre
Mating
Hopeful Monsters
Atonement
Ulysses
Possession
The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay
Moby Dick
Cat’s Eye
Ack. I’ve left a ton off. But I’ll let that stand for now.
No. I cannot let it stand. More of my favorite novels:
Prayer for Owen Meany
Geek Love
Lives of the Saints
Pride and Prejudice
The Shipping News (HOW COULD I HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT ONE??)
East of Eden (just re-read it last year and … I know Grapes of Wrath is supposed to be his masterpiece but this is the book I truly LOVE)
The Goldbug Variations
The Passion
What some people have said about “Possession” ruining them for any other Byatt novels is true of me with “A Prayer For Owen Meany” and John Irving.
Owen Meany was the first Irving book I read– I was entranced from start to finish. None of his other books have moved me like that– and believe me, I read a lot of them, hoping to reclaim that first experience.