Show Hide image

Too close for comfort: Deborah Levy’s Hot Milk is very nearly greater than the sum of its parts

One of the most consistent pleasures of Levy’s fiction is her complete resistance to unthinking characters, unthinking female characters in particular.

Deborah Levy has long mined the seam of desire in her work, and not just plain old sexual desire – although that usually puts in an appearance. Rather, her interest inclines towards the various modes and implications of the deep push of longing itself, as well as the manner in which the pursuit of satiation moves her characters, both around themselves and around in the world. And her fiction is usually situated out in a world where international casts of artists, misfits and the occasional boor mix drinks and ­philosophies while playing and, sometimes, losing at life. Her excellent, Man Booker-shortlisted Swimming Home is the obvious example, and certainly the most fully realised of her novels. But this theme of life and thought explored in the absence of home stretches all the way back to Lapinski, the Russian-exile heroine of her debut novel, Beautiful Mutants (1989). Even the England of her stylistically constricted Billy and Girl (1996) has been pushed through some strange Freudian mirror to create a frantic, dystopian version of itself.

It’s a useful device that has served Levy with ever-increasing success since her migration from play-writing to fiction. By reeling her characters just far enough out from the probabilities of daily life – but not quite far enough for them to make a run for it – she backs them into scrutinising what they are, have been or might become. And so it is with Hot Milk.

Set predominantly in Spain, this is ostensibly the story of an Englishwoman, Rose, and her half-Greek daughter, Sofia, and the quest for a cure for the mysterious (possibly psychosomatic) paralysis that intermittently afflicts Rose’s legs. As the maverick Dr Gómez and his “last-chance saloon” diagnostic techniques soon show, Sofia is in as much need of intervention as the terminally self-centred Rose. Sofia has a First, a Masters and an abandoned PhD in anthropology, but works mainly as a waitress and “main witness” to her mother’s many ailments. Even locating the boundary between her mother’s sick body and her own well body has become fraught with difficulty. For Rose this situation holds no ambiguity: all suffering accrues to her and Sofia’s purpose is to provide relief. The scene is set for a classic tale of overbearing mother v put-upon adult daughter, and that, indeed, is what the reader gets; but not only that.

First, there is the great lush writing itself, and then the luxuriation in place. No writer infuses the landscape, urban or rural, with as much meaning and monstrosity as Levy. She remains blessedly immune to the lure of the “urban everywhere”, insisting on the ability of time and place to affect outcomes deeply. So it is only here, on the unrelenting, sun-stripped streets of Almería, to the backing track of a crazed dog barking, with the ever-present threat of lurking medusa jellyfish, and navigating the personal agendas of this particular ragbag of self-possessed – and dispossessed – internationals, that Sofia can no longer avoid the glare of her sabotaged life.

One of the most consistent pleasures of Levy’s fiction is her complete resistance to unthinking characters, unthinking female characters in particular. This trait is visible throughout Hot Milk. She allows line upon carefully crafted line of incisive observation to trip from Sofia’s tongue. In response to her mother’s comment that she cannot imagine her driving, she wonders, “How do we go about not imagining something?” Or her keen-eyed evaluation of a woman in the street: “Who is her body supposed to please? What is it for and is it ugly or is it something else?” With such quality abounding, it’s hard to hold more self-consciously constructed pronouncements – “My love for my mother is like an axe. It cuts very deep” or “I felt that she was indeed a gangster and that she was mugging my life” – against her.

Levy deftly twins the mother-daughter, physical-emotional paralysis from the outset, too, so the deep sense of filial bondage is clear. Yet it is Sofia’s obvious understanding of the reasons behind her failure to take on any of the responsibilities that might be expected of an intelligent, well-educated, 25-year-old woman that eventually creates a certain frustration with the narrative. She knows, and we know she knows, what both the problem and the solution are, almost from the first page. It is difficult to remain patient with a woman who colludes in overly extending her own adolescence.

Nevertheless, the way Levy draws the other strands together makes up for this irritation. While Sofia falling head over heels for another deeply self-centred woman may not convince, there is plenty to carry the reader willingly along: the exploration of the nature of hypochondria, the boundaries of parental responsibility (to accusations of paternal selfishness, the new, young wife of Sofia’s long-absent father offers the hilarious rebuttal: “Why would he do things not to his advantage?”) and the cynicism of pharmaceutical giants thwarting practitioners who refuse the doctrine of “A pill for every ill”. Interestingly, this is the second novel in as many years (Tom McCarthy’s Satin Island being the first) to feature anthropologists wielding their trade for alternative, and opposing, purposes.

If Hot Milk never quite succeeds in becoming greater than the sum of its many great parts, it very nearly does, and it is certainly an unmissable addition to Levy’s catalogue. 

Hot Milk by Deborah Levy is published by Hamish Hamilton (218pp, £12.99)

Eimear McBride’s second novel, The Lesser Bohemians, will be published by Faber & Faber in September

This article first appeared in the 17 March 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Spring double issue

Show Hide image

Marching against climate change in the age of Donald Trump

The People’s Climate Movement is as much about politics as science. That's its strength.

Saying goodbye is never easy. But the present generation are facing an awful lot of farewells: to the melting arctic, the dying Barrier Reef, and the general resilience of ecosystems around the world. As Margaret Atwood described it in her essay of the same name: “It’s not climate change, it’s everything change”.

The problem with “everything-change” is that it can be overwhelming. How do you even decide where to start?

The People’s Climate Movement want to begin by making visible the extent of concern out there. This weekend, a coalition of organisations have planned a protest march on the American capital. Between 50,000 -100,000 people are expected to attend, including eco-celebrities Leonardo Di Caprio, Al Gore and Richard Branson.

In London, a group called Campaign Against Climate Change, are co-ordinating a UK-based solidarity event. Protestors will meet at 11.30am in Old Palace yard opposite Parliament, then move to Westminster Bridge, where they will spell out a message to Theresa May: “Trump and May: Climate Disaster”.

For UK campaigners, this is a vital opportunity to raise awareness of the many ways in which action on climate change is under threat. Claire James from CACC outlines the sense of frustration and injustice that many feel with regard to recent government policy: “There have been 12,000 jobs lost last year in the solar industry alone and installation numbers have plummeted. Meanwhile fracking, hugely unpopular, is given determined backing.”

Ahead of the June election, campaigners are using the event to call for specific, cross-party commitments. One, fast-tracking the UK’s delayed Climate Change Plan. Two, ruling out new trade deals that compromise environmental, worker or consumer rights. And three, implementing a fair deal for UK solar and wind industry. “Our action on Saturday is about saying to the government – and to anyone who wants to form the next government – do your policies measure up?” says James.

These concrete political aims are an important way in which the movement differs from last weekend’s March For Science. That protest, inspired by the popularity of the Women’s March earlier this year, kept its message intentionally wide. As one of the London event’s organisers told DeSmog, it placed its emphasis on a generalised “celebration of science”. But this lack of specificity drew criticism from some quarters – for presenting a confusing message about politics' relationship to science.

Generalisation can also risk putting people off joining marches at all. Over the last few months, numerous friends have said they feel uncomfortable joining protests where they’re not sure that the person marching next to them is doing so for the same reasons. They’d feel much happier signing a petition, with a more specific and limited aim, they tell me.

This weekend’s climate marches risk drawing some of the same concerns. “Climate-change has become a synecdoche, a surrogate, for many causes in today’s world – social justice, the protection of nature, the rights of future generations, the defence of science,” says Professor Mike Hulme from King's College London. “Marches such as this give political voice to anti-establishment protest, but they don’t stop the climate changing.”

In addition, not all who want to see climate change prioritised by governments may agree over the exact course of action – with outright opposition to fracking, for instance, or to a third runway at Heathrow.

But this weekend’s movement also appears to have taken these lessons on board. First, they are putting their political aims up front. According the US event’s website, whereas the March for Science strove to be non-political, this movement “believes strongly in the need to call out the politicians.”

The link to the Paris Climate Treaty is helpful in this respect. The People’s Climate Movement traces its birth back to September 21 2014, the eve of the UN climate summit, when 400,000 people marched through New York demanding action on the climate crisis. This gives the movement a clear piece of legislation to both celebrate and defend.

And the London-based event is also attempting to re-think and expand what street-protests can achieve. “We’re doing a smaller action rather than a big march,” explains Claire James, “but we’re trying to have a real focus with the speakers on ‘what next’”. After the protest in Westminster, attendees are invited to join an afternoon of free food, activities and music, hosted by the food waste campaign Feedback. Here there will be even further opportunity to learn about the many ways – from divestment campaigns to local renewable energy groups – in which people can help press for change.

In this respect, public action against the climate crisis promises not to end when the walking does. And while protests won't stop climate change in themselves, joining a march can be a powerful reminder that we are not in this crisis alone.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496