Iris on "An Unofficial Rose"

 

FK: Today our novelist is Iris Murdoch. She's a professional philosopher as well as a novelist and although the two activities are very different, being a philosopher does affect what she says about books, as I think you'll see. You'll notice that we don't say much at all about her life but get straight on to this question of philosophy and novel writing. Both deal with human nature though with different tools and if one person does both things, they're bound to get involved in interesting ways.

Iris Murdoch has now published eight novels and we're able by this time to form a pretty strong impression of her gifts and her personality as a novelist. Novels, she seems to say, have to do two things that can't easily be done together. They have to give the reader a sense of the depth and freedom of his own personality by involving him with fictional characters who have mysterious depths and freedom themselves, but novels also have to provide the satisfactions that come from anything that has artistic form. In the case of a novel it is not only clever plotting but the sort of subtle balances and suggestions that we need to recognize before we're willing to think a book is more than merely entertainment, and this second duty-- plot and form and shape and so forth-- tends to conflict with the first if only because it does limit the freedom of the characters.

Now Miss Murdoch is fond of very complex plots and she also tends to write a lot about love. It's a force that liberates the personality but sometimes she makes people slaves to it. So if you're talking to Miss Murdoch about her books, you tend to dwell on the struggle between freedom and pattern, and also on what she seems to mean by love. All these issues come up in "An Unofficial Rose" and you'll hear me talk-- you'll hear her talking about them. "An Unofficial Rose" among other things deals with all manner of differences between the natural life and the life of art, between artless people like Ann and the kind of virtue she can aspire to, between people like that and people like Ann's husband who crave for consciously developed form.

It's the difference as the title tells us between the unofficial wild rose of the hedgerow, and the clever, beautiful cultivated hybrid of the garden, but you'll notice once more that although the book has this pattern, in a form as complicated as a novel there are other themes and patterns that the writer herself can't authoritatively explain-- the tale lives apart from the teller and this has to happen even when the artist is a self-conscious and elaborate as Miss Murdoch.

Near the end of the interview I asked her about a remark made by one of her characters in "An Unofficial Rose" by Swann the parson-- he says that too great a devotion to form is fatal to love. Now Miss Murdoch says that creating free characters in a novel gives the writer a feeling that is close to love for the characters but presumably the more elaborate and subtle you make your plot, the more you allow form to deprive them of their freedom, the less worthy they are of love.

Anyway, I think this leaves you with the feeling that good novels are themselves very mysterious things

FK: Miss Murdoch, it's not altogether common for the same person to be philosopher and novelist. Are the two tasks fully compatible?

IM: Well, they're compatible except in the sense that one has a limited amount of time and they're both potentially a very fulltime jobs... yes they're compatible or in fact to some extent they possibly help each other.

FK: Does being a philosopher give you a special kind of angle on the business of writing fiction? Are you more interested in certain aspects of the problem of writing if in fiction than non-philosophers might be?

IM: No, I don't think so I think as a novelist one is just the pupil of great novelists of the past in a quite straightforward way. I don't think being a philosopher alters or certainly doesn't help one's job as an artist when writing a novel. I suppose my interests in philosophy are chiefly in moral philosophy and in political philosophy and possibly to some extent thinking about situations in moral philosophy or thinking about a problems of freedom and problems of moral decision and so on this may affect sometimes the way one portrays a character.

FK: There's a real difference is there between the way you think about a moral decision as a moral philosopher and the way which you think about it as a novelist.

IM: Well, philosophy is very different stuff from fiction, writing philosophy is a very different job one's aiming at a different result or not even using work of art which are quite special kind of thing one's aiming at producing ?Urschel but the subject matter is the same that is human nature operating.

FK: In your first novel you included a philosopher in fact two - who discussed problems relating both to the forms of fiction and to the use of language in general together isn't this an indication as it were that even in fiction you tend to provide patterns which could be loosely described as philosophical?

IM: Well, that was rather exceptional the introduction of an actual piece of philosophy into a novel is a very dangerous thing to do. I think that subtle French writers attempt it sometimes they get away with it sometimes not I think it's very dangerous to produce pieces of theorizing which could actually be lifted out as it were because they will tend to stick out of one's plot and attract attention to themselves.

IM: It is a fact that that Hugo in your first book says things that you have to agree with I think in this about things well for example his comment on economy the exact words when he speaks of people not having the right to be consoled why should anyone think he says that life ought to be endurable and you've made the point that that form in art is often a way of consoling people for various privations.

IM: Yes, I mean this is something I don't feel altogether clear about myself I think that's well I think there's very very little great art and one reason for this is that both the artist and of course the the consumer too as it were seek too readily to be consoled that some kind of pleasing a consoling pattern sentimentality would be one aspect of this because which then prevents one from producing something which is daughter the kind of hardness and truthfulness which great art has
got.

FK: Yes, in fact the more popular the literature the more conventional the plot is a good general rule I suppose even this heathered and this has an aspect which could be called consoling the fact that people know what design generally the thing is going to follow.

IM: Yes and I think even things which are good which aren't obviously bogus or cheap or grossly sentimental can tend to fail in this particular way because there's some sort of easy pattern which emerges which the writer then follows.

FK: What is lost by undue attention to formal values? is it the quality of life itself perhaps?

IM: well in a way I don't know this one can have undue attention for values I think form is frightfully important in in art but it it well in a novel of course it can I suppose possibly conflict with really free development of character that one finds a sort of tension between producing a very satisfactory pattern and letting some character have his way or let rip as it were.

FK: Now if we turn to "An Unofficial Rose" which is the book we have set to think about there is a distinct pattern in their book of more or less inexplicit debate as you say on this question of form and its relation to life and value. I suppose one could say that Randall represents one attitude and that the parson Swann represents another do you like to... could you say something about that?

IM: Well the main contrast I suppose is between Randall and Ann I mean Ann is the unofficial rose she's the formless object. I mean this contrast between will represents in a rather different way the same contrast that Hugo and Jake present they conflict between Hugo and Jake is the I mean this is putting it in a kind of pompous way wherever there is a conflict between the the man who is an artist and who wants form and who has to run the risks of saying things and using words and so on and the man who is potentially well potentially the saint or some potentially the good man who renounces well who renounces speech in a way I mean this is something that's always seemed to me paradoxical that's the term well that speech itself can in some way be immediately misleading or immediately consoling. I mean there's some I mean it's kind of mad where I want to say that the really good person doesn't say anything. well anyway at the end leer and Ann situation the contrast is such a different world but perhaps similar.
 
FK: Yes there's a kind of aesthetic of silence involved here - isn't there could an there's a suggestion almost that any kind of action is is going to be to delegate from from goodness in some senses or not.
 
IM: Well I wouldn't I wouldn't want to imply that I mean the the book may suggest that because of the sort of ineffectualness attaching to Ann's relation to Felix and so on and the inclusiveness but what I was more thinking of was the way in which perhaps the the good person doesn't have a picture of himself. I mean this was something that I wanted to say about Hugo that Hugo didn't recognize himself when he's presented by Jake in this picture I mean Jake is worried in case Hugo says you caricatured me in fact you were Russell recognized himself at all when Ann again has no image of herself she is unable to reflect on herself whereas Randall who is as it were the artist he represents they they the man who imposes form upon himself and upon the world and wants form and who loves form in in the Roses.

FK: composed form on roses but yeah in fact when you put this when you embody feelings of this kind in a novel you have to do it in in terms - not explicit so you use roses you use well could you tell us about Miranda's dolls which is clearly relevant also in some sense to the situation.

IM: um I don't know that I've got any very clear theory about Miranda's dolls now they represent a particular sort of aspect of her childhood and protecting herself from the world with various images and so on and then the destruction of them somehow represents her growing up or her emerging from this state.

FK: but they are connected with deadness in a sense and also with their works of art in a sense also.
 
IM: yes one might say this yes but one's afraid to put too much theoretical weight  away yes anyway

FK: well I heard not to do that where being over explicit I think we have to be

what about the the Tintoretto which clearly in the course of the unwinding with this very sore finally work story also has a central position which becomes for want of a better word emblematic could you volunteer something on that again?
 
IM: well um again nothing very clear I don't think I mean it is a work of art and it gathers round itself the sort of passions which a great work of art which is also valuable object tends to generate it's loved and at the same time it's it's just an object of value which can be bought.

FK: and Hugh has to sell it in order to set up his son's attempt at raising his life to a level which you call formal.

IM: well yes Hugh of course um is is in as it were setting Randall free doing something for himself retrospectively that is he wishes that he in the past perhaps had acted in what he conceives of as a more free way and he wants to give Randall as it were symbolically for himself this same opportunity.

FK: yes one notices certain amount of this repetition in the children of various features of the parents' life which is again part of the yeah multiple plot. This novel begins it's not the early one of your novels it does with a death which in a sense is made by the extremely fine opening scene a kind of motif for what follows is this again part of the deliberate patterning of the book that should begin with Fanny's death?

IM: Well it just turbulence fell out so is it well I mean it what one of the subjects of the book is Hugh's new life as it were after his wife's death and his reliving of things earlier in his life, his rediscovery of things so that in a way Fanny's death is just the convenient starting point for the entire new situation which affects everybody.

FK: yeah There are many contrasts in the book between wildness and tameness not as in the roses of it in a cat again you've framed the action with the cat going wild and being being returned at the ends in a sense this is a deliberate polarity of theme in the novel isn't it between art and nature after very old fashioned polarity indeed.

IM: yes possibly I think one can perhaps go too far in finding patterns amid the cat sure you know the cat just arrived there was the cat I thought I'd have a cat and then what does the cat do this happened really more or less accidentally yeah in fact it fitted quite happily into the general pattern.

FK: He goes into the mix and in a sense you're no more responsible what comes out of the mix than everybody else has / - hello could I turn to another aspect of this book which has much in common with other books of yours and that is the part played in it by love of every important character in this book is in love with somebody, sometimes rather improbably and this covers everybody from the age of 14 to the age of sixty seventy years now love is associated in your books with a kind of supernatural I was in demonic force which is which reveals truths about persons with everything that sir.

IM: Well yes I'm not sure about 'demonic' in a way the what I would like to do is to portray non-demonic love I mean we all know about demonic love it's the other kind which is much more difficult to portray and this... I mean I don't think it's a particularly successful novel and I mean Ann is not I think a particularly successful character but I was trying in Ann to portray somebody loving in a kind of blank where I where there's no romance there's no demonism was no none of the kind of stormy forces which make love interesting in usually in fiction and in life and then this Swann who was makes these sort of rather softly remarks interpreting Ann's love in a way would she herself tends to reject and this is important that she rejects it

FK: yeah so the analytical deals do with that with rejecting thing this has to instead of simply going along with them the way the others do all of all the others practically Miranda however I think is actually called a changeling at one point in its years of list of together to it was her which contains a kind of element of the fey or did not you yeah but you do is this the dolls helped us and set us the business with the dagger

IM: yes yes I mean they help it atmospherically yes

FK: but it's not part of some grand design

IM: um I don't think so no I mean there the book portrays different kinds of people loving in different kinds of ways but the main the sort of structural contrast is the contrast between Ann and Randall

FK: mm-hm to say thing about the part of Penn the young Australian grandson

IM: well he's an object counterpart to Miranda in some general way he represents the good child as it were and it's significant that Emma leaves her money to Penn and I mean the here he is as it were the successor or the person to whom one thinks of going all as aware in the future warns innocent person and somebody coming from well from a more democratic society and so on I mean there's a faint criticism of the snobbery as it were of the English set up in leiden pens

FK: he has a deep love for Miranda which is projected with great bitterness and contempt is this how do we see this in a pattern

IM: well this is just another another case of being in love I mean again and in a soldier a kind of innocent love

FK: it has we're not to attach anymore where we can of course we wish to would you wouldn't ask us for that and ask us to test more important certain there

IM: well it has that important yeah

FK: and he's made Australian so that the rejection can be flavored with a certain snobbishness

IM: well just this isn't really a very important theme I mean I thought I'll make this boy come from somewhere far away and I thought of putting in the Australian background

FK: he does seem important because he camped up almost a big outset yes yes person described Emma herself had no need presumably in order to be the ex-mistress of you to write detective stories but she does write detective stories why

IM: well again this is purely accidental I wanted her to be rich and I thought this was a good way for her to make her money I asked you the question of death and the rose-garden owes you this cat

FK: Nancy Bowshott is another interesting figure the confrontation of Randall and Nancy Bowshott at thee what is really in some ways the the heart and book has bears where he leaves finally what are we to make up there this is another case of love throwing you down and standing on you or is it something much more trivial than that

IM: well I don't suggest any very weighty significance I mean it's just to show the Randall can be loved in a straightforward moderately selfless way hmm and

FK: we're never to think then of people of being caught unawares and thrown into strange postures by love as you sometimes do treated in that way that you

IM: well love does always tend to do that but I don't think I was particularly pursuing that

FK: now you do this elsewhere perhaps more yes Solomon the houses were rows and this is just pretend remember to Anne again I have a good I think she clearly is essential to the book could you just say again how a done is the raise which is not a highly developed one which in fact she seems to be in some sense incapable in this kind of development but nevertheless is in the truth in a sense to which Randall isn't that right

IM: well this would be intended yes in fact it's very difficult to portray that sort of character without some kind of loss of energy or something which may make the character uninteresting but she was certain intended to be thought of as a good person and as having this glorious sort of un-self-awareness this lack of self lack of ego as it were yeah is one kind of way of being good mm-hmm

FK: and has a spiritual advisor he is a kind of muffled echo of something important isn't it with these stuff

IM: yes and she doesn't recognize anything for herself in the second yeah but it is one

FK: I think Swann who says that something like an improper devotion to the idea of form is fatal to love

IM: yes yes yes yes he makes a number of theoretical remarks some of which I would endorse but not all of all

FK: well then this must be the last point we take up I don't remember that the EM Forster once said that the relationship of an author to his character as the novel is a relationship of love and this is relationship so important in your novels do you feel it to be analogous to your own relationship to the fiction that you're making?

IM: well I think I think there is an analogy between loving somebody in real life in such a way that you can rarely will them to be independent of you or leaves them free and loving one's characters I do love my characters and this the difficulty is the same difficult air that one must be able to leave them free to make them independent this is not easy you