Everything is illuminated: Marilynne Robinson. Photo: Danny Wilcox Frazier/Redux/Eyevine
Show Hide image

Living the good life: Rowan Williams on Marilynne Robinson

Robinson’s trilogy set in small-town Christian America is more than great fiction – it is a political and ethical project. 

Lila 
Marilynne Robinson
Virago, 261pp, £16.99

One of the most important marks of a serious novelist is the capacity to create a diversity of consistent voices, voices we can hear as having an integrity of their own. Bad novelists ventriloquise, good novelists allow the speakers they create to be other than their creator. Marilynne Robinson’s three interrelated novels (Gilead, Home and Lila) about a small Iowa town in the 1940s and 1950s all exhibit in exemplary ways this quality of allowing voices to be themselves. The first of the books is a first-person narration and reflection by the ageing pastor John Ames, writing down the thoughts he wants to leave for his seven-year-old son. The second is a third-person story told from the perspective of Glory, daughter of Ames’s clerical colleague Robert Boughton.

This third novel in the sequence is, in many ways, the most adventurous of all. It is the story of Ames’s young wife, Lila, an enigmatic presence in the earlier books, both unsettling and reconciling, and it is cast as a third-person narration, carefully and strictly related from Lila’s own perspective. There is nothing in the text that exceeds her character’s vocabulary and frame of reference, and, as Lila’s background is revealed to be one of unbroken deprivation, violence and insecurity, finding and sustaining such a voice is quite a challenge.

She is largely uneducated; she does not know who her parents were or even what her original name was, and she has never known anything but a nomadic life, wandering the back roads of the Midwest with other drifters who are struggling to make some kind of living in the bleakest years of the Depression. She is taught a comprehensive suspicion of the lives of “settled” people in the farms and townships, but also learns a passionate loyalty to those who have accompanied her – especially to a woman named Doll, who has, in effect, abducted her from the ramshackle household where she was boarded out as a child and given her what emotional and practical security she has experienced.

The novel is about how this almost feral character ends up in quiet Gilead and marries its Congregationalist minister. Bit by bit, Lila’s history unfolds for us as she works hard not to lose the memory of what she has been and who has mattered to her. Haunting the narrative are texts from the prophetic book of Ezekiel in the Bible she has “borrowed” from the church. Lila’s attention is absorbed almost obsessively by a passage in chapter 16 describing God’s covenant with Israel as the rescue of an abandoned newborn child, still soaked in blood, to whom God says simply, “Live!” And Lila’s concern throughout the novel is who has spoken that word to her in various contexts and what it means.

But her laborious biblical reading produces more unexpected moments of recognition. Ezekiel’s vision of the heavenly chariot in which God rides, supported by four “living creatures” – a passage immensely important in the history of Jewish and Christian mysticism, and whose chaotic vocabulary and imagery still induce a frisson – prompts Lila to reflect on “the wildness of things” which she is tempted to forget as she is welcomed into Gilead’s placid religious consolations. The feverish language of the prophet, boiling over with incomprehensible apparitions, and qualifications or withdrawals of images (“as it were glowing metal”; “the likeness of a man . . . every one had four faces”), makes unexpected sense. “She had the likeness of a woman, with hands but no face at all, since she never let herself see it. She had the likeness of a life, because she was all alone in it.”

To Lila, the many-faced creatures of the vision “made as much sense as anything else. No sense at all. If you think about a human face, it can be something you don’t want to look at . . . It can be something you want to hide, because it pretty well shows where you’ve been and what you can expect.”

It is partly this unconventional Bible study that keeps Lila engaged – baffled, lured, repelled – with the religious world represented by John Ames: in the stormy metaphors of Ezekiel and Job she recognises that she has been recognised, that her experience has had words found for it, even if (or especially when) those words are chaotic and bewildering. Her own distinctive voice – laconic, naive, suspicious, naked – is gradually inflected by these strange mythological idioms.

But this goes hand in hand with the developing relationship with Ames himself. He is instantly and deeply attracted – and just as deeply unsettled and even frightened by her; as he says in his own record of the encounter in the first of the novels, he senses her silent and wary presence in the congregation as a challenge to find more honest words in his pulpit. But his own loneliness – as a man who has lost a wife and baby in childbirth many years earlier – is at the same time pressing him to befriend, almost to pursue, Lila.

The unlikely courtship is finely depicted: the admission that neither really knows how to trust the other becomes a moment of unexpected grace; Ames has to learn what his author has had to learn, how to speak Lila’s language – perhaps more importantly, to learn to know what he does not know. He is not a complacent spiritual professional, but he has to keep discovering how easily he can fall into the speech habits of such a professional. His manifest goodness and generosity have to be pushed to their limits so that their limits can actually appear, to him and to the reader. He has to discover why both his human love and his theological consolation can appear patronising, disempowering, false; to discover a face he has never seen in his mirror.

What makes him finally, in all three novels, a touchstone of credible goodness is his willingness to pause and listen to himself from another’s standpoint. Robinson catches wonderfully clearly the way in which this plays out in what he actually says: as in his own narrative in Gilead, the rhythms of his speech are carefully broken up so that statements are followed by a full stop, a pause, then a qualification or expansion. Heard through Lila’s ears, it can sound both comic and alienating. She does not know if and when he is laughing at her, and he manifestly struggles to find a pitch for his voice that will not push her away.

In a poignant and central episode, Lila, already married and pregnant, feels the need to go back to the rural shack where she slept before she and Ames agreed to marry, and finds a teenage runaway there, even more wild, proud and shy than herself. He has run from home having, he believes, killed his abusive father; he is wrestling with whether he should go back to be hanged. After all, what else is there for him? Lila talks to him, begins to allow him to be heard and accepted, gives him her savings, leaves him her overcoat, and then returns to town, realising belatedly that her long and unexplained absence will have left Ames both fearing she has left him for good and fearing for her life.

We see and hear Ames’s heroic effort not to reproach or intrude when he comes back to find her at home. But by this time he and Boughton have already been out to the shack and inadvertently scared the boy away. When Ames finds Lila at home, his imagination is full not only of what she may have done but of the fragility of trust and the danger of his own words and actions to anyone who has had to learn to trust as if learning a foreign language.

This is, at one important level, a novel about the inadequacy of goodness. The world of Gilead is full of virtue and kindness; but it survives by denying something. When Lila, newly baptised, hears Ames and Boughton having a mild theological dispute about the fate of un­believers, she suddenly grasps that all the people who have kept her alive up to this point are “outsiders” to faith and grace, strangers to the kindly old pastors; and she is filled with revulsion at her own “insider” status. She goes to the river and rubs water over her body to “cleanse” herself from baptism, from the pollution of her betrayal of Doll and her graceless friends and travelling companions.

What Lila discovers and slowly formulates for herself is what finally emerges in the last pages of the book, where, almost for the first time, a strong, lyrical passion infuses her reflections: if there is heaven, it has to be filled with those who are there because others could not bear to be without them, whatever they have done or been. There cannot be anyone who is not needed somewhere, in some way. The longing for safe goodness is trumped by the hunger of and for solidarity.

And this is what the merely good do not know. The Lilas of the world are those who challenge the ways in which the good refuse to know what they do not know. This is why Lila in the earlier, but chronologically later, novels can function as a point of (near-silent) reference by which the rhetoric of others is to be judged; why she is an absolving as well as a disturbing presence, aware of the irony of being who she is where she is, but neither rebelling nor colluding, simply stating by her presence that things might be different.

There have been some accounts of these novels that might lead you to imagine that Robinson is constructing an idyll of unfallen rural America, a celebration of small-town values, community loyalties and simple faith. Because she has identified herself as not only a Christian but a Calvinist of sorts, many have assumed that she will line up with a conservative religious agenda and an appeal for a return to frontier virtues. In fact, her political record (including eloquent support for Obamacare) has made her a deeply controversial figure for the religious right. And this novel ought to dispel any such myths for good. The earlier novels actually provide a sharp indictment of the way in which the comfortable society of the town has forgotten its own history – its record in the conflicts around the civil war as a bastion of the Union and a safe refuge for runaway slaves.

The understated but pervasive racism of the 1950s is all the more effectively evoked by being highlighted in the benign figure of old Boughton, Ames’s best friend. Ames himself, in Gilead, comes to see this with unwelcome clarity and to wonder whether the town is under a curse, the curse of no longer being able to hear the question posed to its “goodness” by rebellious and critical voices such as Boughton’s son with his African-American wife. And Glory Boughton in Home reflects, in the same vein, on the “curse of sameness” that afflicts her own life and that of her community.

Lila has already been introduced to us as someone who represents otherness and questioning; this novel allows us to see how she has become that way. Much of her experience is utterly beyond that of Ames. Her friend (and, in effect, foster mother) Doll is self-sacrificially generous to Lila, and capable of violence against anyone threatening her. When Doll is arrested after killing a man in a knife fight who may be Lila’s father or uncle, Lila, abandoned, is manipulated into work in a brothel. The madam’s spite and petty tyranny are described with a sort of expressionless resignation that conveys the emotional abuse and outrage more completely than any overt plucking of the strings. What Lila calls, flatly, “meanness” is pervasive, and she acknowledges the moments when it finds a foothold in her own soul.

Gilead is certainly a place where something other than meanness is possible, and it is not wholly poisoned with hypocrisy. But it only begins to make something new possible for Lila when, in the person of Ames, it faces the dispossessed and marginal, the poor in spirit. We cannot be credibly good without the outcast, the stranger. Lila is as uncertain as Ames about how she can communicate this; but the book ends with her resolve, as she ponders the future of her newborn son, that “some day she would tell him [Ames] what she knew”.

Robinson has told us what Lila knows, with a consistent spareness and precision of expression that compel attention from the book’s first line. She has brilliantly voiced a story about deprivation, trust and mistrust, the critical edginess of real compassion – unmistakably a Christian story, but far from an ideologically triumphant argument. Its moral acuity and insistence on what it means to allow the voiceless to speak give it a political and ethical weight well beyond any confessional limits. It will repay many readings for the subtlety of its narration, its sensuously realised descriptions and its stark emotional and psychological clarities. Lila is the work of an exceptional novelist at the peak of her capacity. 

Marilynne Robinson will be in conversation at a Cambridge Literary Festival event, in partnership with the NS, on 14 November

Rowan Williams is an Anglican prelate, theologian and poet, who was Archbishop of Canterbury from 2002 to 2012. He writes on books for the New Statesman

This article first appeared in the 08 October 2014 issue of the New Statesman, Grayson Perry guest edit

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: The unresolved Eurozone crisis

The continent that once aspired to be a rival superpower to the US is now a byword for decline, and ethnic nationalism and right-wing populism are thriving.

The eurozone crisis was never resolved. It was merely conveniently forgotten. The vote for Brexit, the terrible war in Syria and Donald Trump’s election as US president all distracted from the single currency’s woes. Yet its contradictions endure, a permanent threat to continental European stability and the future cohesion of the European Union.

The resignation of the Italian prime minister Matteo Renzi, following defeat in a constitutional referendum on 4 December, was the moment at which some believed that Europe would be overwhelmed. Among the champions of the No campaign were the anti-euro Five Star Movement (which has led in some recent opinion polls) and the separatist Lega Nord. Opponents of the EU, such as Nigel Farage, hailed the result as a rejection of the single currency.

An Italian exit, if not unthinkable, is far from inevitable, however. The No campaign comprised not only Eurosceptics but pro-Europeans such as the former prime minister Mario Monti and members of Mr Renzi’s liberal-centrist Democratic Party. Few voters treated the referendum as a judgement on the monetary union.

To achieve withdrawal from the euro, the populist Five Star Movement would need first to form a government (no easy task under Italy’s complex multiparty system), then amend the constitution to allow a public vote on Italy’s membership of the currency. Opinion polls continue to show a majority opposed to the return of the lira.

But Europe faces far more immediate dangers. Italy’s fragile banking system has been imperilled by the referendum result and the accompanying fall in investor confidence. In the absence of state aid, the Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena, the world’s oldest bank, could soon face ruin. Italy’s national debt stands at 132 per cent of GDP, severely limiting its firepower, and its financial sector has amassed $360bn of bad loans. The risk is of a new financial crisis that spreads across the eurozone.

EU leaders’ record to date does not encourage optimism. Seven years after the Greek crisis began, the German government is continuing to advocate the failed path of austerity. On 4 December, Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, declared that Greece must choose between unpopular “structural reforms” (a euphemism for austerity) or withdrawal from the euro. He insisted that debt relief “would not help” the immiserated country.

Yet the argument that austerity is unsustainable is now heard far beyond the Syriza government. The International Monetary Fund is among those that have demanded “unconditional” debt relief. Under the current bailout terms, Greece’s interest payments on its debt (roughly €330bn) will continually rise, consuming 60 per cent of its budget by 2060. The IMF has rightly proposed an extended repayment period and a fixed interest rate of 1.5 per cent. Faced with German intransigence, it is refusing to provide further funding.

Ever since the European Central Bank president, Mario Draghi, declared in 2012 that he was prepared to do “whatever it takes” to preserve the single currency, EU member states have relied on monetary policy to contain the crisis. This complacent approach could unravel. From the euro’s inception, economists have warned of the dangers of a monetary union that is unmatched by fiscal and political union. The UK, partly for these reasons, wisely rejected membership, but other states have been condemned to stagnation. As Felix Martin writes on page 15, “Italy today is worse off than it was not just in 2007, but in 1997. National output per head has stagnated for 20 years – an astonishing . . . statistic.”

Germany’s refusal to support demand (having benefited from a fixed exchange rate) undermined the principles of European solidarity and shared prosperity. German unemployment has fallen to 4.1 per cent, the lowest level since 1981, but joblessness is at 23.4 per cent in Greece, 19 per cent in Spain and 11.6 per cent in Italy. The youngest have suffered most. Youth unemployment is 46.5 per cent in Greece, 42.6 per cent in Spain and 36.4 per cent in Italy. No social model should tolerate such waste.

“If the euro fails, then Europe fails,” the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has often asserted. Yet it does not follow that Europe will succeed if the euro survives. The continent that once aspired to be a rival superpower to the US is now a byword for decline, and ethnic nationalism and right-wing populism are thriving. In these circumstances, the surprise has been not voters’ intemperance, but their patience.

This article first appeared in the 08 December 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Brexit to Trump