"Life is disappointing." That may be the only line of dialog from Yasujiru Uzo's Tokyo Story that has remained in my memory. I recall the film pretty well visually and dramatically, but there isn't a great deal of sharp and memorable dialog in it, at least when one is hearing the Japanese and reading subtitles. In the film, the remark is made by a young woman who has already seen many of her hopes crushed.

In suggesting that the line may be the theme of this novel, I'm not giving anything away; it appears in the first chapter, and is a relatively minor disappointment. But it seems to promise more such. The orchid of the title is a flower called "gymnadenia."  The protagonist of the novel, Paul Selmer, is a teenager in that opening chapter, and on a Sunday afternoon in spring he is helping his mother, Julie, with her garden.

"I'm so excited to see if anything will come of the gymnadenias I put in here last year--"

"Gymnadenia?" asked Paul. "Isn't that some kind of orchid?"

"Yes--white, with a sweet scent--I got some from Ringibu last year, from Halvdan. But you can't always be sure they'll come to anything."

Paul is filled with the promise of the flower:

Deep within him [Paul] had a feeling that the spring was something which was flowing over him, swelling from one second to the next, that it would wash over him and pass on.

"Gymadenia," he whispered softly.

A couple of months later, in July Paul returns from a trip of some weeks to find that the gymadenias have in fact done well, and his mother has put some in in his room.

There stood a little vase with some small green-looking flowers in it. Paul took it up. Frail stalks, with a few insignificant whitish little flowers growing up them. They had the faintest of scents....

He was frightfully disappointed. 

The novel is not as dreary or bleak as that might suggest, in fact it's not dreary at all, but it does deal with the inevitable failure of life to live up to hopes, and just generally to evade our expectations, for better and worse. 

 The first thing anyone who has read Undset's most famous works, the multi-volume novels of medieval Norway Kristen Lavransdatter and Olav Audunsson (better known in English as The Master of Hestviken) will want to know is how this book compares to those. Not so very favorably, I would say. Which is not to say that this one isn't good, but it doesn't have the dramatic intensity and color of the medieval stories. That is in some degree a result of the difference between the active and harsh life of medieval Norway and the comparatively dull life of the early 20th century bourgeois.

It's a pretty straightforward story of the fairly ordinary life of Paul Selmer from adolescence until his early twenties. I don't recall that the exact date is mentioned, but the story seems to open around 1904, in what would be called in an English setting the Edwardian era. This would make Paul perhaps less than ten years younger than Undset herself, who was born in 1882, so we are seeing this period in Norway as she herself experienced it. Paul's parents are divorced, and I was a little surprised to find that the circumstance was not as unusual as I would have expected: within the first chapter or so Paul is comparing his situation to that of other children of divorce whom he knows. 

His mother is an interesting character, a thoroughly progressive woman who believes that marriage, religion, and in general the conventions of society are outworn customs to which one need not and indeed should not defer. Paul is surprised to learn that it was she, and not his father, who had initiated the divorce, and it seems to have been not because she had wanted to get out from under a tyrant, like Ibsen's Nora in A Doll's House, but just because the situation seemed too far less than perfect. Yet like many human engines of social destruction she is herself an honest and responsible person: she is not, like so many women of our time who have freed themselves from marriage etc., always pathetically in pursuit of romance. As far as we are told, she has simply lived quietly and pleasantly with her children, supporting the family with a small printing business. 

Paul has a great deal of respect and affection for Julie, and is more or less as disdainful of the old ways as she is. But he is as hard-headed a judge of her advanced beliefs as she has been of convention, and regards her general philosophy of independence and rationalism as shallow, or worse. And Paul's life, as far as we witness it here, becomes a critique not of the older bourgeois ways, but of the newer ones. He is a sort of character we encounter fairly often in 20th century literature: indifferent at best to the conventions of the preceding century, but seeing no clear alternative. He is not, however, a gloomy and alienated Prufrock type, but a lively and robust young man. He is disdainful, in what I think I can accurately call a Kierkegaardian manner, of the established Lutheran church. It is not, therefore, surprising that he becomes interested in the Catholic Church--not surprising to a reader of novels, I mean, though his type may have been pretty rare in real life.

He has a friend, a young woman named Randi (which struck me as slightly odd) who is a convert. He lives for a time in a rooming house run by a Catholic family. He becomes acquainted with a priest. When Julie and others of his family detect this interest, they are alarmed. There is a fair amount of conversation about religious matters, and it would not surprise me if some readers, especially those with no particular interest in the questions, would regard this is a novelistic flaw, a diversion from the story, and from more immediate matters of character and relationships. Well, perhaps some of these discussions are a bit too abstract or a bit too lengthy for fiction. But there is nothing more fundamentally human than the questions posed by religion. 

There is one very broad sense in which this book resembles the medieval novels: it's a story of love and marriage, and a study of Christian faith. The treatment of the latter is, obviously, quite a bit different, and has to be, because of the vast psychological difference between medieval faith and modern post-Christian skepticism. And Paul's love life, which occupies a good deal of the story, is not nearly as dramatic as Kristen's or Olav's. But in the most elemental way it is still the same human drama of choices and consequences. I'll leave out any details, so as to avoid revealing too much. But he does get married, rather far into the novel, and there are reasons to believe that its sequel, The Burning Bush, will reveal problems in the marriage which seem relatively mild cause for concern here. The Wild Orchid ends at the outbreak of World War I, with Paul having given up his earlier academic plans for a career running a company which sells household goods of various sorts. This is not the downfall that it might seem: he rather enjoys business and is good at it.

Another feature of The Wild Orchid which is not so much shared with the historical novels as identical to them is Undset's fascination with, and eye for, the natural world. I remember thinking, while reading one of the big books, that the way she described landscape, light, and weather seemed immensely fecund: always vivid, always detailed, never repetitive. She was, obviously, acutely sensitive to the smallest natural things and to the constantly varying conditions around them. The very first page of the book contains a long paragraph, so long that I don't want to transcribe it, in which Paul revels in the countryside he sees from a train. And these descriptions, always made with a sense of delight, are frequent. 

Both The Wild Orchid and The Burning Bush were written in the early '30s, after Undset's conversion and after Kristen and Olav. I wonder if Undset believed that Paul's trajectory toward genuine religious belief would be common in the disillusioned times in which she was writing. She was disappointed in that, of course--or at least I assume that by the time of her death in 1949 she could see well enough that very few people were following her lead. So perhaps the remark from Tokyo Story proves applicable after all. The future, of course, as far as we have yet lived it, would belong to Julie, not to Paul.

The translation is by Arthur Chater, who also translated The Master of Hestviken. Chater was English, and so naturally his translation of 20th century Norwegian speech comes out sounding pretty English-y. I found this just a bit disconcerting at first: would a Norwegian in 1908 call someone a bounder? But that's of course completely irrational on my part.

The edition I read is a recent reprint from Cluny Media, and it's a pleasure to read: well-made and handsome. I'm currently reading, also in their reprint, The Burning Bush, and will report on it in due course.

I refer to the Mobile Symphony Orchestra. As I've had more than one occasion to mention here, there is something in the experience of live music that just can't be had by listening to recordings at home, no matter  how good the recording or the system reproducing it. The orchestra doesn't have to be one of the world's greatest--a capable, enthusiastic, and hard-working one in a medium-sized city which is hardly a major cultural center is enough to give you that something. 

The MSO plays at the Saenger Theater in downtown Mobile, which is where what people generally refer to as "nightlife" happens. On weekend nights especially, it's thronged with young and youngish people going to restaurants, clubs and bars. On symphony nights, of which there are only a half-dozen or so in the year, you also see a certain number of incongruous-looking older people, some of them downright elderly, many dressed much more formally than the young crowds. They--or we--look, and some of us feel, rather out of place--but some don't appear to feel that way at all, being well-to-do Old Mobilians who seem to regard themselves as the rightful proprietors of the area. By "Old Mobilians" I don't mean old people who live in Mobile but people who are of the families who have lived there for generations, or who are in the extensive network of friends, business associates, and others who might be called the ruling class of the city.

It's a shame that I can so easily identify symphony-goers by their age and class. But it is unfortunately the case that people who are interested in classical music tend to be older and more affluent. I don't think this is necessarily a sign of doom, though, as some think. It's somewhat natural that classical music would become more appealing to some people as they get older and, perhaps, more open to music with deeper and more lasting appeal than pop. Perhaps. Or perhaps attendance at the symphony is a bit of a status marker, or a mainly social event. I do sometimes overhear conversations which suggest to me that the speaker actually has little interest in the music itself. Well, that's ok: I'm glad they paid for a ticket and hope they keep doing it, and that they're getting some enjoyment out of it.

And the audience is by no means entirely made up of older people. There are quite a few younger ones, not the majority perhaps but a not-insignificant minority. A group of half a dozen or so who seemed to be quite young, probably not, or maybe just barely, out of their teens, was hanging out in the lobby at intermission, taking pictures of each other, and seeming to be having a great time. They didn't seem to be posturing or sneering or sulking or anything else except being young and lively. They asked me to take a picture of the entire group, which I was very pleased to do, for the sight of them had cheered me. Why were they there? It's fairly likely that they were music students.

Which does not necessarily mean that they are music enthusiasts. I think music students are sometimes required to go to concerts. The most hilariously un-enthusiastic remark I've ever heard at one of these concerts came from a group of music students who were sitting behind me in the very cheapest seats, way up in the balcony. Surveying the program before the concert started, one of them noted the symphony that would be the second half of the program and wailed to her friends "Y'all, they're going to play all four movements! We'll be here all night!" If I remember correctly they spared themselves that ordeal and left at intermission.

So much for social observations. What about the music? The first piece was Benjamin Britten's "Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra," which as you probably know is meant to exhibit all the instruments in the orchestra, one by one, in a theme-and-variations. I'm pretty sure I'd heard it once or twice over the years and wasn't expecting much. But it's a much more substantial piece than I had thought. The theme is a grand tune from Purcell, and the variations are really pretty remarkable. They quickly went much further afield than I was able to follow, and the piece ends with what struck me as a rather wild fugue, and a restatement of the theme. If you can get over any patronizing sense that it's a merely pedagogical tool, this is a pretty impressive piece of music. 

Next was the Barber Violin Concerto, with Randall Goosby as the soloist. A week or so before the concert I listened to a recording of the concerto, thinking that I had never heard it before and would at least get a little acquainted with it. But I immediately recognized the main melodies of the first movement, so obviously I had. And one of those melodies is now, four days later, sounding in my head, which means it ranks with some pop music in memorable tunefulness. I love that first movement, and may with a few more hearings love the whole concerto. The second movement has so far not made a strong impression, but the third is pretty striking: it's a very short, only four minutes or so, fast and furious thing, going at breakneck speed from start to finish, and, it seems to me as a non-violinist, making some pretty strong demands on the soloist. To my unexpert ears Goosby seemed to have no problems with it.

Then came a delightful surprise. Goosby's encore (much demanded) was a piece I had never heard of by a composer I had perhaps vaguely heard of, Coleridge-Taylor Perkinson. It's called "Louisiana Blues Strut" and is just 100% enjoyable for someone like me who likes the blues as much as he likes classical music. See what you think:

Here's a little about the composer.

The second half of the concert consisted of Rachmaninoff's Symphonic Dances (op. 45). This was the last thing Rachmaninoff wrote before his death--which, I was a bit shocked to hear, occurred in 1940. Yes, I knew he had been born fairly late in the late 19th century (1873) and had lived and worked well into the 20th, but I somehow had the notion that he had not lived past its first couple of decades. Maybe that's because I think of him as a late Romantic composer. (If you do the arithmetic you'll note that this was not an exceptionally long life: 67  years. But the vast changes that occurred during that period make it, in effect, longer.)

I had not heard this piece before, and didn't have time to give it a hearing before the concert. So all I have is a first impression, which is that it's big and colorful and spectacular, but not especially profound or moving. That may be a totally unfair judgment--I repeat that it's tentative. It certainly has some materials for profundity, reaching into Rachmaninoff's personal history as well as Christian sources both Eastern and Western on the themes of death and resurrection. In any case it was very enjoyable, and I think is the kind of piece that the Mobile Symphony does well. Its conductor, Scott Speck, is a very energetic and enthusiastic person, and this performance was definitely both of those. I greatly enjoyed it, and it seemed that the entire audience did, too.

The moment I saw the cover of this book I wanted to read it. 

It isn't just that she's a pretty girl, or even that she seems miraculously suspended in space. Presumably she's jumping on a trampoline, and the image we see is only a bare instant in one of those jumps, frozen by the camera. The power of the image is in the look on her face, that her eyes seem to be on or searching for something in the far distance, and that she seems to be not just suspended but ascending. Or levitating. Maybe that's it--it's like those medieval saints who were said to levitate. 

Did the novel live up to the promise of that picture? Well, not really. But that only shows the power described in the old saying: a picture is worth a thousand words. That's generally true but almost necessarily true if the words are an attempt to describe, or provide an equivalent of, the picture.  How could words, no matter how brilliantly chosen and placed, do just what that image does? Words must be read in sequence, over some period of time, while the image has its effect in an instant, and this is a picture of an instant.

More to the point, is it a good novel? Yes, it is. 

I can't help associating the girl in the picture with a crucial character in the novel, who hardly appears at all but is very significant. Her name is Hannah, and she and the narrator, who is in his middle or late thirties, had been childhood friends. (It's mentioned in passing that she did in fact have a trampoline.) As they entered their teens he fell in love with her, but never had a chance to do anything about it because she died suddenly of an unsuspected brain aneurysm on New Year's Eve of 1995, just shy of her fourteenth birthday. On that night he might have made, in fact had more or less intended to make, some kind of approach or declaration to her. But he chose, instead of going to the New Year's Eve party at her house, to play Dungeons and Dragons with friends (and drink beer, his first experience of drunkenness). 

The novel opens in 2017, and the first-person narrator has not thought much about Hannah for many years. Then the sight of honey locust trees on an October evening sparks his sudden recollection of the night of her death:  

...my mind without warning or apparent cause [was] seized by the memory that despite every reason to be by her side I spent the night that my childhood love Hannah died far away from her, playing a game of fantasy and getting drunk.

This sudden surge of memory is the catalyst for a series of recollections amounting to a review of his whole life since adolescence, and to events which lead to major upsets in his marriage and his life in general. 

The narrator is, we are told, a writer of fantasy novels, but I admit I was never quite convinced of that--I mean, convinced that he had actually written popular fantasy. Certainly he is extremely interested in fantasy, but the interest seems more that of a reader and a thinker than of a practitioner. I would in fact describe him first as an intellectual, but a polymath, not a specialist: very widely read, very much preoccupied with ideas, having a useful knowledge of multiple languages, a cellist accomplished enough to play Bach's cello suites, and a composer of music, at least in his student days.

And this is a very cerebral novel. It's almost the exact opposite of the last book I wrote about here, Mark Helprin's A Soldier of the Great War. That novel, though not lacking in thought, and implying much more, is primarily a story of action, often very robust (to say the very least) physical action. This one, though not lacking in physical action, is primarily one of thought, often fairly abstract thought. And whereas the main body of Soldier is one continual sequential narrative, Absolute Music is a sort of mosaic of memories of different times and places, moving among the latter in a connected but not sequential fashion, though always within the framework of the events following that moment in 2017. 

This sometimes leads to memories within memories, a technique which I found somewhat confusing at times. I've just glanced back at a section which begins from the point of view of 2017, looks back into 2001, and from there into 1989. As these recollections are often, or usually, accompanied by some more or less abstract philosophical or theological reflection, it is easy--or at least it was easy for me--to lose track of where and when we are.

And I could have done with less explicit philosophizing, though the complaint is a little unfair, as that is clearly the nature of the narrator. But though it may be at times a little confusing to me, the novel itself is not confused. It's in fact pretty tightly structured. Its structure is based on that of Bach's cello suites, a conscious and explicit decision by the narrator, who refers to the narrative as "suites." There are six of these, one for each of the cello suites. And each suite is divided into seven parts, corresponding to the dances, or pseudo-dances, of Bach's work: Allemande, Courante, Sarabande, two Minuets or Bourrees or Gavottes, Gigue. I would be surprised if there is not some significant relationship of the "dances" of the novel's suites to Bach's, but I did not make the effort of figuring it out. (And I don't know the cello suites so well that the relationship is obvious.) And I'm pretty sure that themes and ideas are worked into the novel as musical themes are worked into a symphony or other substantial work, though, again, I did not attempt to dig them out and analyze them. 

So. We have an elaborately woven picture of a man's mind and life, including the intimate presences of friends, family, lovers, and wives--two of the latter. And places: I would be culpably negligent if I failed to mention the important role which place and love of place have in this novel. Much of it is set in Cincinnati, and I have to admit that I had not thought of Cincinnati as a place inspiring deep affection and study. But I believe it here. In saying that the novel is cerebral I don't mean to imply that it is indifferent to the physical, which is portrayed vividly. Those honey locusts in the opening pages, for instance, are described in detail, not only those specific trees at that moment, but the species at large.

What does this picture portray? What is most significant in it? This is a complex novel and that's not a question to which I would attempt to give a full answer in a blog-length review, or in fact without reading the book a second time, which I may do--I think it would be worth re-reading. It is a startlingly full book, though it isn't quite 300 pages long; it's crammed with incident and thought and people and places. It would take me another thousand words just to name the characters and their relationships. One of the blurbs on the back cover emphasizes its focus on the elemental human relationship, man and woman. And that's a fair reading. But I think these few sentences, which occur near the end of the book, are closer to the heart of it:

It seemed to me in that dim midday that only in the pure music I had long since renounced, the absolute music that reaches into the world behind the world, can the artist master time, set a time signature at will and free of words. But even that was an illusion, wasn't it? For only in performance...only then is the composer's time realized, only then--in time.

I wanted to believe that singing in my veins and sinews from one autumn to the next there had been many kinds of music that made up one great music. Who then was the composer, and for whom did he compose?

*

With A Soldier of the Great War still fresh in my mind, it occurs to me that the experience of reading it, a mostly straightforward linear narrative, provides something closer to the experience of music than does the musically organized Absolute Music. Like music, a story as such is experienced in time, and moreover it is, you might say, a simulation of time: it depicts events, which by definition exist in the stream of time and therefore in the only sequence of which we have knowledge and experience, the only one we can truly call sequence, the one we call chronological, They may not be presented in that order, but if the result is to be a story in any useful sense of the term, it must at least be susceptible of that ordering. In a non-linear narrative, at least one in which the non-linearity is the norm and not an occasional effect, we see temporally disconnected pieces of the story. There is no continual flow, and we can only grasp the story as a story after we've received all the pieces, i.e. out of time. Some assembly required. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and may be very effective artistically. But it is a different sort of experience from the elemental one of hearing a story.