NLR14507
NLR14507
NLR14507
Neil Belton
125
narrative addresses the fragmented object-self of the past as a separate
person: ‘through them, I recall you thinking, you might at last find a
way forward’. There are interviews with the nanny who brought him
up, with the gardner, the groom and the housemaids. An extraordinary
network of personal lives begins to emerge, dotted by the tiny struggles
of the oppressed with each other, resonating in a wider political history:
there is a familiar, tense combination of resentment and nostalgic
deference towards the prewar past in many of the servants’ reminis-
cences. The detail of the work they had to do, most of it drudgery,
comes through without bitterness but with full consciousness of
oppression. They couldn’t speak unless they were spoken to; were
banished from the front of the house, like incidental landscape figures,
when friends came to call; like the groom, were sent off to the war after
seven years’ service without a sentimental word or a valedictory fiver.
Rarely has the human cost of the English bourgeoisie’s dream of
country life been so carefully registered and dissected. That the mother
was American and the father Scottish probably gave an extra edge of
insensitivity to their behaviour. The divisions and contradictions among
the servants are fascinating: for the nanny (a German to whom England
was a weird place of horses, sport and Gracie Fields) the writer’s father
treated the servants as human beings, while for the gardener (who had
to put leather shoes on the donkey before he mowed the grass) he
treated people like pigs.
126
If the parental relation is the primary one it is paralleled by and
contrasted with his identification with the servants. The split ego of the
child is jarred into a quadrifocal pattern of allegiance: the gardener Bert
and the nanny at times take on the role of ‘good’ mother and father.
The tension of this family romance carved out of class differences is one
of the most intriguing ironies of the book.
As might be expected from the author of Blood of Spain, the oral history
is brilliantly done, integrating the normally absent subjectivity of the
questioner with great delicacy. The dialogue of the reconstructed
psychoanalysis is handled in a way that allows the language of explicit
interpretation (depressive position, projection and so on) to emerge as
a necessary part of the reconstruction of the fragmented psyche, and
also to engage in a submerged debate with the rival claims of materialist
history. At one point the analyst objects to Fraser’s obsession with
‘someone else’s testimony’, declaring that ‘what happened is less
important than what is felt to have happened’. Later he can accept, still
without believing that there are complementary theories to his own,
that the writer wants to become the ‘historian of his own past’ in the
book that is an issue during the analysis.
127
the personal onto the historical and history into myth. The characterist-
ically melancholic versions of this form, from Brideshead Revisited to
Woodbrook have their counterpart in the mass cultural exploitation of
tragic historicism. Fraser admittedly owns to ‘a deep yearning for what
might have been’ in the ideal summertime of the war, before the twin
certainties of maternal bounty and patriotic classlessness disintegrated.
But the real work of the text is of realistic reparation: making good
broken internal objects in order to totalize the past while recognizing
that they can never be restored. It’s the richness of the resistance to this
process that gives the book its strength.
The book also activates a second kind of integration of the past. If the
first is reparation—the adult recognition of separateness and loss—the
other is recuperation, a ‘fantastic’ over-completion of the lost object
that probably must accompany any attempt to externalize it. The
calmness, the near-formalism of the encounters between Fraser and his
analyst P. must be related to this pre-oedipal completeness of the
recovered past symbolized by the mother. Purists would say that
Fraser’s is not a proper analysis: we are spared the furies of transference
and the full unravelling of his relations with his father. The implication
that the achievement of the text indicates a hereafter, a cure, redirects
our attention to the phantasies that knotted the character into what it
was, but also embodies a distinct form of nostalgia, a recuperative
‘acting-out’. This integrative ego of the finished narrative moves in
parallel, but in a different temporal space, to the reparative process. The
power of re-enactment here is that it gestures, in its transparently
illusory closure, towards a dialogue between forms of intersubjectivity:
neither the banal triumphalism of the successful transference nor the
trim ironies of the inter-class encounter.
128