CC BY
18A Symposium on Morality and Master Georgie
The next two articles were sent in separately. The Editorial Board felt that they both raised issues about interpretation of fiction generally, and about assessing moral issues in individual books, in particular So it was decided to add a third article in which one of the editors would ask questions concerning fiction and moral values, drawing upon the two articles for examples. We hope that readers will contribute to what is an open-ended debate in future issues of FOOTPATH.
В статьях дискуссионо анализируется роман «Мастер Джорджи». Акцент делается на своеобразии понимания авторами статей морально-нравственных проблем, художественно решаемых Бейнбридж в одном из лучших ее романов.
Olga A. Souleimanova, Ksenia S. Kardanova Moscow City Pedagogical University
Master Georgie: A Novel of Responsibility?
What are the facets of responsibility? What turns can it make? How do different people act when they feel responsible? What can prompt an individual to shun responsibility? How far can the responsibility shouldered - both imposed by the environment and imaginary - take a person? These are only some of the questions an innocent reader is continuously asking him/herself when steered through Beryl Bainbridge’s Master Georgie by its three narrators, each offering a fulsome yet rather impressionistic and delusionary account of the events.
At the centre of the novel is the issue of responsibility which reveals its different facets through the eyes and behaviour patterns of the protagonist and the narrators - Georgie’s retinue. The reader is left to speculate over what prompted Dr. Potter, Myrtle and Pompey Jones
to follow George to the front line and whose account can be trusted. The point is that each of them is linked to Master Georgie in one way or another - with Myrtle seeing her benefactor’s well-being as her primary concern, Dr. Potter viewing it as a challenge and Pompey being critical, even rebellious. Their interpretations of the events hinge on their attitudes and perceptions, their ambitions and above all their responsibility - thus a certain bias, delusion or misinterpretation in the narrations can’t be ruled out.
One can see the events through Myrtle's eyes whose unconditional love for her master and self-indulging and sacrificial devotion to him and his family manifests itself in a romantisized image of George. Myrtle has always seen him as an icon, since her green days when she was meant to run errands for Georgie, to follow him around and to safeguard his privacy, still never to interfere, to inquire or to judge. She was to be nothing but a shadow - at a call distance, but never too close, invisible, speechless, void: ‘Suddenly he shouted over his shoulder, 'Don't lag behind, Myrtle. Keep up with me.' <...> I was happy, for his flung injunction signified he knew I was there and didn't want me lost’ [Bainbridge 2007: 18]. Having no past Myrtle clings to her present of which George is the pivotal point. She voluntarily sacrifices her life to him, nurtures her devotion and ‘is simply unable to let George out of her sight’ [Bainbridge 2007: 69]. Her obsessive affection for her master is for Myrtle a way to harbour herself from the war sizzling around them in the Crimea. In fact, as Dr. Potter observes, surprisingly enough she is flourishing amid horror and death, humiliation and torture as this is where she can envelop Georgie in her caring and loving attachment and savour her feelings.
One can choose to be guided by Dr. Potter as his decision to follow his brother-in-law to the pith of the Crimean war stems from his aspiration to be a match for Georgie and Myrtle:
‘I’m not a brave man and I must admit it did cross my mind that I might return to Constantinople and thence home. I suspect I would have done so, had it not been for Myrtle. Nothing on earth would have persuaded her to leave Georgie, and if a mere woman was willing to stand her ground, how could I possibly turn tail?’ [Bainbridge 2007: 106]
Still he arouses suspicion down to the fact that he lives a delusionary life, this being his way to cope with the atrocities of war. He seeks refuge in his books, shielding himself from death and devastation, holds on to the ghostlike image of Beatrice, succumbs to misguided notions. The reader is left to speculate whether Dr. Potter can be credible enough in his account as he is susceptible to delusions and perception lapses and to a certain extent devoid of common sense.
A reader might get a feel that a reliable narrator is Pompey Jones as he is critical-minded, reasonable, immune to Georgie's charisma and independent. His account of the events is less veiled and misleading. In fact it can be certainly viewed as a rather critical vision of the protagonist. Unlike other narrators, Pompey sees George as having an array of downsides: drinking heavily, exhibiting
homosexual inclinations, lacking responsibility. There is certainly no love between the two men: Pompey, being an ambitious, bright and gimmicky, yet less fortunate youngster, takes advantage of this relationship and pulls the strings. He can afford to perpetrate any mischief and get away scot-free as he is convinced that Georgie is unable to break off this relationship: ‘George won't part with me for long... You'll see’ [Bainbridge 2007: 66]. Pompey's reckless and inconsiderate actions caused in fact severe damage to Georgie's family life and had profound implications. Unintentionally he contributed to termination of Annie's pregnancy and ultimately to her infertility, thus indirectly prompted George to take advantage of Myrtle and to come into children with her. Moreover, Pompey was well aware of his benefactor's homosexual inclinations and whenever necessary he was employing this lever. One might even view Pompey's practical joke with the tiger skin as a sabotage attempt. All through the novel Pompey Jones is featured as a complex personality, full of idiosyncrasies and pursuing hidden agenda. There is a certain ambiguity in him, which confuses the reader and deprives him of any sustainable vision of this character: Jones can be simple-minded, family-oriented, adventurous, sophisticated - there is an array of facets he exhibits to people around. This stand can be supported with numerous examples from the novel, one being most vivid: Pompey has received no formal academic training, thus he normally relies on
simple, unambiguous vocabulary and catch phrases, still there are occasional turns when he slips into his speech a posh word or two (perambulations [Bainbridge 2007: 42]; portentously [Bainbridge 2007: 197]). Needless to say, Pompey is a survivor who can certainly amend his account if necessary.
When reading the novel, one is bound to get a feel that the interpretations of the events by the three narrators stem from their unique visions of responsibility, thus the chapters - plates - differ in style, emotion and pitch.
Having been offered three perspectives on the events, people, attitudes and perceptions, the reader can't but wonder why the protagonist doesn't get a word of his own. The answer is both obvious and appalling - Beryl Bainbridge doesn't trust her lead character to speak for himself.
It might surprise the reader that Georgie is featured through the eyes of his retinue - his distant relative (Mr. Potter), his adopted sister (Myrtle) and his subordinate (Pompey Jones) - people who normally don’t make up the immediate circle of an individual. It strikes that his immediate family is indefinite: George doesn’t seem to be attached to his wife Annie, her very existence is that of a ghost, lacking flesh and spirit. All through the novel she is vague, transparent and fungible.
There seem to be no family bonds between Georgie and Beatrice: the narrative doesn’t establish any explicit links between brother and sister - in the beginning of the novel Beatrice is barely visible, still she becomes solid and persistent when Dr. Potter chooses to stay with George at the frontline. She turns out to be his milestone navigating him through the horrors of the war, still her very existence is limited to her husband’s imaginary world. Just like Annie, Beatrice is a mere ghost hovering around the company - having no flesh, no word, no say.
The relations between father and son are certainly worth ruminating about. The appalling truth is revealed in the initial chapter of the book: Mr. Hardy is found dead in the bed of a prostitute in the most disreputable part of the city. Whereas Myrtle is shocked at the scene, Georgie doesn’t seem to be much surprised at finding his father’s body swathed in the stained, smudged and creased bedlinen in
a dusty, well-worn room which undoubtedly welcomes many men. The unhuman cry is triggered by the mere demise of Mr. Hardy, this being a vindication of the son’s attachment and respect for him. Still there is hardly any love between the two. Georgie is striving to conceal the disgraceful details of his father’s death: Mr. Hardy’s body is brought back to the house and taken secretly to master bedroom, the picture is taken in which Mr. Hardy seems to have died in his own bed, Myrtle is immediately sent off to a boarding school to save the risk of the truth being spilled over to other members of the household. These steps can be viewed from at least two perspectives: as a tribute to tradition or as a way to conceal lack of true compassion. Just like with many other scenes in the novel Beryl Bainbridge leaves it to the reader to decide which interpretation sounds more convincing.
Georgie’s attitude to his mother can be characterized at best by indifference and at worst by animosity. He is irritated with her inability to be the fibre which links the family, with her withdrawals to her bedroom at the pretence of suffering migraines instead of coping with the problems, with her enduring her husband’s ostentatious behavior. Mrs. Hardy is barely visible in the novel, just like all the women in the family.
Having looked into George’s relations with his immediate circle one is surprised to discover that there are no warm feelings, no love, no support in the Hardy family. The protagonist’s attachments and affections lie outside his family circle: he is (as human beings often are) brave, compassionate to casualties and at the same time doesn’t care about his nearest and dearest. Moreover he is oblivious of the fact that he makes people who are truly devoted to him suffer (Myrtle, Annie, to name just a few). Another consideration to further support this argument is that Georgie never plays with his own offsprings, which gives rise to doubts whether he cares about them at all (Myrtle is the one who is always seen with children, she a typical case of a family-orientated woman who is perfectly fit to be a full-time mum. The physical and mental pain she suffers when separated from them is almost tangible. George on the other hand hardly ever mentions he has children at all and certainly can easily do without them - probably having children is merely expected from a married man of his social
status and he pertains to tradition). To top it all, he took his family to the Crimea where the hostilities were in progress. We need not say that war is no good place for children and women and it was a reckless scheme which no sensible and prudent person would ever undertake. In fact every serous decision is taken sporadically, in a most controversial, irresponsible manner. Even his surgery practice is amateurish: he is neither here nor there, in other words, he is a true gentleman. It is the war that could have made him realize his full potential, which he failed, spent on his father’s sins and his own burdens. As a result the protagonist trusted his family in Dr. Potter -the most unpractical person, and it is not clear whether the family is going to survive.
Thus, at the centre of the debate is the issue of responsibility shouldered by the protagonist, which is doubted even by the author. Sometimes the author sympathizes with Master Georgie, though still treats him ironically.
Undoubtedly, Beryl Bainbridge has a masterly feel of the language, she manages to sound both evasive and convincing, affectionate and critical, emotional and sensible. Master Georgie is an amazing read which can certainly spur a heated debate as the author doesn’t impinge on the reader - she offers freedom to opt for a momentary, impressionistic, individual interpretation (as if looking at a photograph which imprints differently in the minds of different people).
References
Bainbridge B. Master Georgie. Abacus, 2007.
