The unseen observer, is he bound to speak? McEwan’s In a Nutshell review


It’s been quite the winter, and here in Nevada we are only half way through the season. We can see snowfall as late as March. As I write it’s raining and snowing. This has been a record wet year, and again, we are only half way through the season!

We’ve had 12.63 inches (or roughly 32.09 centimeters) of rain since the start of the year. Our average yearly total is 9.23. As you might of guessed by now, we now have more water than the ground can hold. Great news if you are duck, but for us home dwellers this is becoming a nightmare. My lawn is now a pond and the water is starting to seep onto my patio. Good thing I held onto the sandbags I got a few weeks back. I am also learning how to sleep to the noise of a sump pump.

But enough about the weather. It’s been a while since I posted, but you will have to excuse me. Between snow shoveling and ark building I’ve been preoccupied. Ever Googled a cubit? Ever gone into a hardware store asking if they sell boards by the cubit? I don’t suggest you do, the look you get is not worth the giggle. I thought everyone but Americans built things using the metric system; leave it to God to make up his own system of measurement. Sigh.. All kidding aside, the one good thing about winter weather is that it makes for a great reading companion. And I have done a lot of reading these last few weeks. In fact, I have read a genre I haven’t had much enthusiasm for lately. I’ve started reading fiction again.

It started with some mentions on Twitter. A few readers whose opinions I highly respect mentioned reading McEwan’s In a Nutshell, based on Hamlet and liking it. Soon, the New Yorker and other magazines praised it as a tour de force and possibly McEwan’s best writing yet. The Washington post said, “It’s more brilliant than it has the right to be”. And this, my dear friends, is the best line of a review for the book you’ll read. It really does say it all. I cannot express myself enough about how much utter joy it gave me. It is modern fiction at its finest. If only other writers had half McEwan’s talent.

Now, stay with me, as the plot will seem beyond absurd. From the author’s webpage:

Trudy has betrayed her husband, John. She’s still in the marital home — a dilapidated, priceless London townhouse — but John’s not here. Instead, she’s with his brother, the profoundly banal Claude, and the two of them have a plan. But there is a witness to their plot: the inquisitive, nine-month-old resident of Trudy’s womb.

The story is told through the eyes of Trudy’s unborn son. He is the unseen observer of both Trudy’s betrayal and involvement to kill her husband, but more importantly, he observes and comments on modern life and this is where the fun begins. His observations are both comical and biting, This is the baby thinking about college life:

A strange mood has seized the almost-educated young. They’re on the march, angry at times, but mostly needful, longing for authority’s blessing, its validation of their chosen identities. The decline of the West in new guise perhaps. Or the exaltation and liberation of the self.

Should inconvenient opinions hover near me like fallen angels or evil djinn (a mile being too near), I’ll be in need of the special campus safe room equipped with Play-Doh and looped footage of gambolling puppies. Ah, the intellectual life!

And like all good tragedies, he also makes us cry as we watch his helplessness as he is trapped in a situation that offers no control.

Unless, unless, unless–a wisp of a word, ghostly token of altered fate, bleating little iamb of hope, it drifts across my thoughts like a floater in the vitreous humour of an eye. Mere hope.

For those of us who are parents, this book will make you wonder if your prebirth actions were observed and noted. You may ask yourself if somehow, without forethought or intent, your actions affected your child’s worldview, as if he/she fed off  your words and the words of your outside contacts just as he fed off the food you ate. For those who bought into the idea that playing Mozart to an unborn child would make him/her a genius you have to ask yourself, what effect your daily activities had on the child? And even if you didn’t buy into this, you may find yourself wondering if your child formed his first opinions based on his prebirth observations. It’s both a scary and hilarious prospect. Especially with observations like this one:

Not everyone knows what it is to have your father’s rival’s penis inches from your nose.

Much like Shakespeare this book is contains layers. The most obvious is McEwan’s use of an unseen observer in order to write about modern thought and society. The other is a tad bit more nuanced; the hard choices we make and the ripple effects that sometimes nudge but often wash over those around us.The baby’s mother is tragic in the sense that she seems to be bereft of any sense of true dignity and self-awareness, much like Hamlet’s mother who enters into a pact with Claudius out of lust and possibly self-preservation but without thinking about the consequences of those around her. In fact I would say we don’t feel for McEwan’s expectant mother like we do Gertrude because as a modern women there are more choices available to her. And unlike Gertrude she is no innocent pawn of Claudius’ plot.

There are nods to Hamlet, naturally, but you don’t have to be a Shakespeare fan to enjoy this book. It stands alone as a great piece of modern literature. But like Hamlet, be prepared for a tragic ending; this is no modern fairytale.

Works Cited

McEwan, Ian In a Nutshell Random House September 2016. Print Edition

Washington Post, Ian McEwan’s In a Nutshell a tale of betrayal and murder as told by a fetus. September 12, 2016. Online

For giggles I have to admit I heard the baby in the voice of the E-Trade baby. This was a series of commercials that stared a talking baby. For my UK readers and those who do not remember I offer these clip. After finishing the book you may need a good laugh, so I urge you to go back again re-watch them

To be or not to be, a Protestant or Catholic ghost?

John Gilbert Hamlet in the presence of his father
John Gilbert Hamlet in the presence of his father

The last time I wrote about Shakespeare and ghosts, I asked if you believed in ghosts. This time, I am asking, what is a ghost? We talked briefly about the modern idea of the nature of ghosts, but not of the religious nature of ghosts. The answer to the question may hinge upon your religious beliefs. Would you believe me if I told you that in the 16th century the answer could have gotten you killed?

Between the years 1534 and 1633, England experienced religious turmoil as each new monarchy ordered new religious followings; some more extreme than others. The country went from deeply Catholic to forced Protestant and back again, and then, back again! Henry VIII ordered all large monasteries to be dismantled. Under Mary Tudor, nearly 300 Protestants were burned at the stake. Under her sister Elizabeth I, Catholicism was tolerated up to a point. Only after a Catholic led assassination plot was uncovered did Elizabeth turn a suspicious eye to the faith. And so it went, as one royal died the next reversed religious course, right up to the civil war led by Charles I over religion and his ideas about kingly authority.

William Shakespeare was born at a time when Catholicism was giving way to Protestantism. Publicly this meant many citizens went to Protestant led church services, but privately kept to the old rituals and tenets. We cannot say for certain that Shakespeare grew up in a duel religious home, but evidence does seem to support this.  When the Stratford townsmen, which included Shakespeare’s father,  were ordered to white wash the Church walls and remove religious icons they lightly painted over the religious scenes, hid the icons and kept the stained-glass windows intact. There are events in John Shakespeare’s life that suggests he paid fines for not attending Protestant church services and a document titled “The Testament of the Soul”, once disputed but now deemed authentic, shows that John Shakespeare was willing to sign his name as a Catholic, at least in private. Jump to Shakespeare’s daughter, Susanna, who in 1606 was listed as a Papist after failing to appear at a Protestant Easter service in Stratford. We would not be too far off to say Shakespeare was at least exposed to both religious worlds as was his family.

So what does this all have to do with ghosts? Well, one of the biggest differences between Catholics and Protestants is the answer the question I posed at the beginning of this blog. And had I asked you that in 1564, the answer would have given your true religious beliefs away.

Protestants do not believe in Purgatory, nor do they believe a soul has the capability of returning from the dead. Catholics on the other hand do believe in Purgatory (not to be confused with Limbo, in which no soul is ever allowed to leave). Protestants (at least during pre-modern era) believed that if a ghost was to appear it was either an angel or demon; depending on the circumstance. The “ghostly” apparition would either be a sign of mercy or a sign of damnation. Contact with a ghost was strictly forbidden in the Protestant religion, as one was never sure if the visitor was a force for good or evil; best just leave that for the clergy to deal with.

We all know scholars love to look to Shakespeare’s work as proof of his personal life and never so much as been written as what has been written about his religious beliefs. There is a big debate on which side of the religious fence he sat on; was he a secret Papist, or did he outgrow the old religion and embrace the new religious tide swept in with Elizabeth’s reign?

Scholars on the side of Catholicism point to one of literature’s most icon ghosts for proof of their argument. Hamlet’s father’s ghost is one we all know and one that is forefront in the minds of many scholars looking to answer the question of Shakespeare’s religion. They point to his monologue, which seems to answer the questions, “what is a ghost?”

I am thy father’s spirit,
Doomed for a certain term to walk the night,
And for the day confined to fast in fires,
Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purged away. But that I am forbid
To tell the secrets of my prison house,
I could a tale unfold whose lightest word
Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood,
Make thy two eyes like stars start from their spheres,
Thy knotted and combinèd locks to part,
And each particular hair to stand an end
Like quills upon the fretful porpentine.
But this eternal blazon must not be
To ears of flesh and blood. List, list, O, list!
If thou didst ever thy dear father love,
Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.

As you can see, the ghost is claiming to be a spirit, or soul who is doomed for a time to suffer fire and take nightly walks around his own castle. This is his fate he says because

Of life, of crown, of queen at once dispatched,
Cut off even in the blossoms of my sin,
Unhouseled, disappointed, unaneled,
No reck’ning made, but sent to my account
With all my imperfections on my head.
O, horrible! O, horrible! most horrible!

The spirit was dispatched (murdered) before he could make a confession of his sins. He was not allowed last rites, so he must suffer the flames of damnation until his soul is cleansed. This is a classic explanation of Purgatory and why so many scholars point to this as proof of Shakespeare’s Catholic leanings. To be fair, they also point to Shakespeare’s warm dealings with the clergy in several of his plays; most notably Friar Lawrence in Romeo and Juliet, and Friar Frances in Much ado about Nothing, but for our purposes, we will concentrate on Hamlet and how Shakespeare supposedly answers the question, “what is a ghost?”, in this play.

Shakespeare’s ghost is important to literature. Forgive me if I am wrong, but from what I can come up with, this is the first ghost in dramatic history that offers an explanation of his plight since Seneca’s Agamemnon and let’s face it, Shakespeare borrow a lot from Seneca, including his ghost. But for all of the borrowing that Shakespeare engages in, he is the first to offer a look at the supernatural life of a ghost; he is the first to tie a ghost to Purgatory. But for all of this, we still cannot say Shakespeare answered our question as a Catholic, because as much as the ghost wants Hamlet to believe him, his son is not quite buying it. I may have said this before, but the reason Hamlet cannot make up his mind about anything begins with his hesitation at answering our question. And now that you understand the different answers, the motivations and actions of the characters take on a new meaning. Take the example the reaction of Hamlet when he first sees the ghost

Angels and ministers of grace defend us!
Be thou a spirit of health or goblin damn’d
Bring with thee airs from heaven or blasts from hell,
Be thy intents wicked or charitable,
Thou comest in such a questionable shape

Hamlet is unsure if this is an angle or demon and what its intentions are. Hamlet’s ideas about the specter fall into line with the Protestant view of ghosts. Horatio has strong Protestant views on talking to the ghost as well, as he warns Hamlet not to follow it.

What if it tempt you toward the flood, my lord,
Or to the dreadful summit of the cliff
That beetles o’er his base into the sea,
And there assume some other horrible form,
Which might deprive your sovereignty of reason
And draw you into madness? think of it:
The very place puts toys of desperation.

Horatio is afraid that the ghost is a demon bent on destroying Hamlet. He seems to believe that the ghost is a demon and the best form of action is no action, just leave it alone. But as we all know, Hamlet is too grief stricken to listen and he willingly follows the ghost because he cannot let his father go.

Yet for all of his grief , Hamlet cannot decide whether this “ghost” is a Catholic soul trapped in Purgatory asking for revenge or if it’s a Protestant demon conning him into committing murder. It is not until Hamlet stages his play that he finally finds his answer. It seems to him that his uncle is guilty of murder, therefore the ghost must be telling the truth. But then again, what if some demon just happened to know how Hamlet senior died and uses this information for his own purposes?

Scholars look to Hamlet’s ghost for their own answers in part because Shakespeare has given us such much in this character. Shakespeare had written ghosts in a few of his plays before Hamlet, yet this is the first time we see a ghost tell his story and direct the plot of the play. Hamlet’s ghost demands attention and action, something not seen before, but copied over and over again in modern literature.

There is a lot to analyze about the relationship between Hamlet and his father. Is there a connection between this father and son and Shakespeare’s own relationship with his father? Is Shakespeare torn between his family’s past religious beliefs and the country’s new beliefs? Or did Shakespeare simply use religious tension as a dramatic plot device in order to give us one of the world’s best plays? I’m betting on the latter.

We will never really know the answer to these question just as we will never know Shakespeare’s true ideas about religion because he answers our original question with both answers. Just remember, how you answer the question may tell us more about you than it will about ghosts.