I read 84 pages of The Lie of the Land last night. I like the use
of multiple points of view. It seems to be a novel about spying and lying
and silences. It seems to me to be a Foucauldian panoptican novel, with
everyone involved in gazing upon everyone else. Once I decided this, it
changed utterly and a terrible beauty was born. I'm referring to p. 69,
"David's Story." It stops being about English reticence and English
decorum and English silences and becomes something else. Just when the
reader may be becoming tired of the gaps and silences, he gets what seems
to be a new novel. And yet it is the same novel because the woman is going
to give birth to David.
There are multiple mysteries in this novel (never referred to as
mysteries) and that keeps one reading. In fact, I couldn't put it down.
And then there's a Blakean mythic level: two Englands, one inside
another, like a Russian doll.
There's another thing this novel is about but I can't talk about
it because it must never be named among men. It dare not speak its name.
But Rachel at least thinks it on p. 52. But then she seems to reject the
idea. And yet, my dears, all that dropping off at tea rooms, which are
never called tea rooms but quite clearly are, don't you know.
And then the novel is about... And then it's about... And
then...
I finished Lie of the Land almost two weeks ago, so I have had
quite a bit of time to
reflect on what I read. If the questions of what I did and did not like
about this book had been posed to me after I first finished the book, I
would have had nothing good to say. At all. I didn't like some of the
subject matter, like "the bathroom" scene. I was truly shocked, and even
sickened by that portion of the book. I also got really tired of the
question of whether the two men were gay or not. Now that I have had time
to really think about the book and reflect on what I read, I still don't
like those portions, but I actually liked the book. I read the thing in
maybe three sittings. The characters were very interesting, and the plot
was enthralling. I could not put the book down, and I was so interested
to find out what in the world was going on. It wasn't really written as a
mystery, but it had some of the characteristic that a mystery novel might
have. The plot itself was great. This mysterious guy that is guilty
about some unknown and scary reason - he is potentially dangerous, and
people are putting themselves in danger to help him. I was horrified to
find out what happened to make him commit the crime, and actually put the
book down for a while. (I was substitute teaching, so it was a really
weird situation, because I couldn't react at all, I just had to sit there
and be calm, and as you all will find out, I am not always calm, and I
like to react when I feel strongly about something!) I finally started to
read again, and I managed to get back into it and become interested again.
I do like the book, even though there are those parts I don't
agree with, but I would offer this book to someone else to read, with a
warning of certain parts. Offering a book to another is a pretty high
compliment in my book.
First of all I had no idea what to expect from this book.
I
had never heard of this author or had any clue as to what the book was
about.
Just as Melanie said, I too read the book in about three sittings over two
days.
I couldn't put it down. I found myself frustrated because I couldn't read
the
last 40 pages or so fast enough to find out how it ended.
I personally found Rachel's character extremely interesting where
as
others may not. I am a social work major and it seems to be Rachel's
occupation as well It was interesting to see how she dealt with Quinn and
David's visits and how she attempted to discover David's case history and
how
all of the other characters fit into his story.
I found myself constantly questioning David and Quinn's sexuality.
At
first I thought they were both gay and then it seemed that Quinn loved
David
but discovered that David was straight.
I also found myself trying to solve the "mystery" and somehow
connect
the characters in David's story to those in the present portions of the
book.
I liked the idea of providing the manuscript for us to read along with the
characters as we all tried to make sense of David. I found the parts
about the
woman in the darkness (the angel of death??) and the islands very bizarre.
It
was also interesting how the act of sex always seemed to be the ending of
relationships except in the ending it seems to be what saves David from
his
death.
I thought the symbolic use of David finding Quinn at the allotment
where he had burried the body and seeing Quinn as his second chance to
make
his actions right was neat. In response to Melissa's reaction of the
reason
David killed this man ( the bathroom scene) I agree that it was
disturbing.
I would question you if you didn't find it disturbing! But unfortunately
there are sick people out there and it's a part of life. It bothered me
but
I just kept reading. It is understandable why David would kill this man.
I found myself angry with Rachel for not staying with David while
he
was downstairs listening to music near the end of the book. Didn't she
realize that he would leave?! But at least she saved him in the end. I
couldn't make myself like Matthew. His attitude was self centered and his
reactions to Rachel were far than supportive.
I was glad that Art and David appear to have a chance for a
relationship But I am still confusedas to what is real and what is
not.
It was funny to see some of the different words that they use. For
example:
Ring someone- to call them on the phone
Saturday week- Saturday night?? Pg. 52
Plaster- bandaid or ace bandage wrap? Pg. 53
Advert- advertisements Pg. 108
Roundabout- merry-go-round Pg. 192
And I'm sure there are many more.
All in all I really enjoyed the book. It was very easy to read
but
a confusing plot to follow which makes it unique to most books around. I
guess
I talked quite a while now so I'll stop. I hope what I said made some
sense to
someone! I can't wait to find out what other people thought.
I am the first to respond
that has actually read the novel previously. Therefore, one would think
that I should have a better understanding of the events surrounding the
novel. However, after a rather brief reread I can honestly say that I am
just as much in the dark about its significance as the rest of you.
First of all, I definitely see where the relationship
between
Quinn
and Nennius is weird. I find it particularly strange that Quinn knows
almost nothing about Nennius yet he obviously cares for him deeply. Now,
I
really don't see a homosexual connection as much as I see a lonely man
trying to reach out for a companion, any companion. Quinn constantly
seems
to be making more of the relationship than it actually is, I think that he
is a bit delusional.
Throughout the novel I searched for the meaning of the
"angel of
death" story but I found none, leaving me more confused than ever. The
funny thing is that no matter how confusing it all got, I never put it
down,
either time. There is something very intriguing about this book,
something
so mysterious that it keeps the reader reading. I have also found that
rereading has allowed me to catch a lot of things which I did not catch
the
first time through. The one thing that I want to know is the meaning of
"I
know you, I have found you, and I will not let you go." What does it
mean?
Maybe that's what makes the book so interesting, you never know which
direction the story will take, or what any of it means...
I was left with mixed feelings concerning the book. I've been slowly
reading it, a little each day, and enjoyed the way it kept the reader
guessing and coming back. Even though it really wasn't a "mystery novel"
it had similar feel.
I feel the characters were well written and not flat. There was depth to
these people. I take the opposite stance of Melanie and have to say the
allusions to homosexuality from Quinn, the strange feelings from David,
added more realness to their souls. However, I was a little dissappointed
with the climax of the book (the shed scene). The image of David with his
arms extended like wings and razors for feathers was excellent, but the
underlying message that sex was the answer to his problem was an easy way
out. Of course, being touched by someone else would help open his mind
and soul to love, but still...Breaking down his mental problems with
conversations or other avenues would be a little more probable and
helpful. I seriously doubt his problems are solved now.
The story within a story was excellent. The way David's story is contained
in the book is creative and a nice break from the normal continuity.
However, I don't see why Melissa acted the way she did. Did David care
more for their son than she? Leaving David wasn't as believable as it is
made out in the book. Of course, if she never left there would not have
been a book.
Tana Responds to Scott
Scott,
I think that it is very believable that Melissa left David . . . not
because she loved Art any less than he did . . . not even because she did
not love David . . . she was afraid. A man who could kill another with
his bare hands . . .and did so. Wouldn't you be a little afraid to live
with someone like that . . . it would be torture, trying to please hime
all the time . . . afraid to p. him off . . .
just a thought . . .
~Tana~
Melanie Responds to Tana
I wanted to comment on what Tana responded to Scott. I don't
know
if anyone else had the impression that I got, but I felt like his wife
didn't know why he killed the guy. It seemed that she saw what he had
done, and never gave him an opportunity to explain why he had done it.
Did I miss something, or did anyone else see this differently?
Mel
Scott Responds to Melanie
I wonder how she would have reacted if she had been the one that walked in
on the evil act? True, she didn't seem to try and understand David or the
situation. She seems to run away instead of dealing with problems. Of
course, David tried to run away (kill himself) instead of dealing with his
pesonal mental problems. But, he was saved by Rachel, whereas there was no
"rachel" to save their marriage years ago.
Well...I have a different slant to the reading of this book. After we met
for our orientation/first class, I transcribed an interview with MoWestern
students and Haydn Middleton. I don't know about you guys/gals, but when
I read something, anything, I'm somewhat swayed by what lies BEHIND the
actual text. Hearing about Middleton's life skewed my perspective
somewhat of the story--because, fiction is never really fiction, right? I
mean, we can assume hidden meaning and contextual subtleties, hmm? Well,
Middleton told our fellow Oxfordians about different difficulties he'd
experienced as a writer including his relationship with his wife. So I
was forever reading into Rachel relationship with her husband, Matthew.
(p. 55, 58-59, 119-120, 174) But look closely at this particular argument
between Rachel & Matthew on page 152:
Matthew--"I wouldn't mind so much," he said with a caustic
smile,
"If you showed a bit more interest in what I'm writing."
Matthew--"I'd talk if you were genuinely interested . . ."
(Lines omitted)
Rachel--"I am genuinely interested . . . " but she could think
of
nothing more to say.
What strikes me here as absolutely (fascinatingly) ironic is we
see Matthew, a struggling young writer, who desperately needs the support
(almost a validation) from his wife Rachel. And Rachel, while supportive,
is very much wrapped up in a work of fiction that takes precedence over
everything, including her husband. Does she need him--his validation?
I'm not sure. But when Middleton was talking about his relationship with
his wife, he mentioned (they are divorced now, and were at the time of the
interview but NOT at the authorship of this particular book) the toll
being an author takes on one's family. The family is expected (according
to Middleton) to bow a submissive retreat while the god-like author is
authoring his/her masterpiece. I was so frustrated when listening to
Middleton's defense of his writer stance; but, I know I put people and
pleasure on hold for my own pursuits, so go figure.
Well, enough of Middleton and his writer-husband stance. That
probably wasn't very interesting anyway. But I was really interested in
Rachel's response to Middleton's portrayal of Matthew's need for
validation from his wife. I ALWAYS have to wonder when male authors write
from a woman's perspective or vice versa. I could go off on that. I
won't.
Back to topic, here--well, actually, I'm totally out of time. I
read LOL a long time ago. And then again just recently. I still couldn't
read past what Middleton proferred in the interview. I, like Tana, had
fun with the "English" language and allusions. And I appreciated Scott's
comment on the catch-all sex solution to all of our problems. Hmm, sex
has never solved any of MY problems. Well, I have French homework and an
apartment to clean out . . . so, I'll just have to save the rest of my
connaissance a propre du livre de Middleton pour un autre jour! Merci!
We were asked to discuss our reactions to The Lie of the Land. I
will first tell of my "gut responses" then how I reacted after some
thought. As I began reading the book and noticed that the initial point
of view was of a man discussing another man with a lot of detail on the
physical description. I thought: "is this going to be a story about a
homosexual relationship?" I don't think I was worried about reading about
a gay relationship, I just was . . . well, not alarmed or shocked, just
surprised. It wasn't that it mattered, it was just my initial reaction,
again based on the way the two men related to one another (Quinn in the
domestic role of caring for the house and meals, then feeling a need to
follow David when he went out), and the descriptions given of the men:
David is described as "forty years of age . . . loose limbed, easy in his
movements"(7) who "had always reminded Quinn of an eagle"(6). Quinn is
described as "twenty four . . . a small man. slight and swarthy, a sparrow
hawk to [David] Ninnius's eagle" (7) This is going to be interesting, I
thought, and hoped that it would give me an insight into what life might
be like for my Uncle Kim and Stuart or of R&R, (friends who I don't know
well enough to know much about their domestic life.)
The next thing I noticed was some of the phrasing and
vocabulary
that led me to believe that this book was not written in the states . . .
I should have realized that before I read it, but I wasn't thinking . . .
phrases like "Chinese take *away*" rather than "take out", "cinema"
instead of "theater", "rings" for "phones" or "calls", "flat" instead of
"apartment", "solicitor" for "lawyer" and on and on. There were even a
few I didn't know the meaning of right off. I think one was "redundant"
and another was "plaster" (which I at first took to mean that there was
still some of the wall left on his face and later decided meant a
bandage.) As I read, I thought I would like to make a study of these
different word choices . . . however, I don't think that option is
available to me . . .
My next reaction was a personal one: it was to the Good
Samaritans. I
do
understand the context here, but the name of the hospital my mom worked at
was Good Samaritan. They also referred to their place of work as "Sam"
I found myself catching my breath whenever the reference caught me off
guard. (Those of you who are curious and don't know what I am talking
about in reference to my mom, ask me sometime, I don't mind talking about
it.)
I liked how the story kept me interested by a number of
devices . . . there was a sense of mystery . . . and the use of what can
be called "forwards" (the planting of questions you want answered and have
to keep attending to find out). I hate when a story reveals so much that
I know all the outcomes within the first chapter . . . then I am stuck
reading the rest . . . what a drag.
Another reaction I had was to the mythology involved. I
am not at
all familiar with the mythology connected with this story. I was able to
be satisfied with the story without knowing what it was all about . . . it
is something else I thought I might like to do more research on . . . but
it too was already spoken for. I was really curious about the stories
within this story.
Speaking of stories within stories . . . David's story . .
. I am
not sure how much of it was "truth" and how much of it was "fiction" . . .
And then, what is the REAL story??? I enjoyed the story. I wish it
provided more answers and fewer questions . . . you can't have everything
though . . .
I was saddened and sickened when I read about Art's
experience .
. . sickened when I read about David's response . . . but not without
understanding . . . when my mom was murdered (okay, I know I said I
wasn't going to talk about this here, but now I am going to have to
mention it) my husband, brother and step-father (even my step-sister and
grandma, now that I think about it) could have easily killed the boy who
shot her . . . my Gram talked about wringing his head off like you would a
chicken--she grew up on a farm. It would have been wrong for them to do
that . . . but they could have done it. When someone hurts, violates
someone you love in that way, there is no rationality . . . there is only
blind rage and the need to do SOMETHING. There is no fight or flight . .
. only the unadulterated need to return the pain and make sure that it
NEVER happens again. I am not saying that I approve . . . just that I
understand perfectly the blind rage that led David to his actions. I
don't approve that David's transgression was covered up (literally buried)
because I think that is caused David more distress and I believe that
nothing can remain hidden indefinately (actually, the author showed this,
so I approve of the choice -- just not as a "real"-- outside the story--
one) All will be revealed . . . the truth . . . however bad it may be . .
. is better to deal with than falsity. Falsity is too complicated, it
shifts and changes and it is too much work remembering it and keeping it
strait, let alone keeping it buried.
Maybe this is why I was glad when Rachel went home and
faced the
music with Matthew. I am not happy that he hit her . . . that was wrong .
. . but understand how hurt and violated he felt . . . another man had
been with his wife . . . but they are going to work it out . . . it will
be a long time before the trust is built back, but she gave him the truth
. . .
and the truth . . . whatever it is . . .can be dealt with.
These are my initial reactions. I looked at the
assignment list
sometime after I read the book (which I did all in one day) and began
thinking about some of the ideas suggested. One I thought about was the
idea of making it into a movie . . . actually I had thought about some of
the questions posed there as I read the book . . . and may want to choose
this as my project assignment . . . but I also looked at the significance
of the mythology . . . how does the two-island myth fit into the rest of
the story . . . I have some ideas about that, and might like to develop
them as well . . . and then the intertextualizations also interested me
. . I haven't had the opportunity to do much of that am interested in
learning it . . . so my long term reactions are not well developed yet . .
. but they are well begun.
To address Lie of Land is difficult for me. This novel gave me mixed
feelings. I loved the constant reminder of something as simple as a
postcard from Blake's "The Dance of Albion" or "Glad Day". This imagery
provided a sort of circular ending to several chapters in this novel.
Despite my pleasure in brief storytelling episodes throughout the novel, I
could not understand the intimate relationship between Rachel and Nennius.
Their final "act" together brought Rachel down for me. I was disapointed
in the character. Middleton's ability to shed light on problem
relationships is quite visible. I could feel the tension between Rachel
and Matthew. Somehow Middleton really explained why their relationship
just wasn't working, therefore foreshadowing its future collapse. This
novel intruiged me. I never got the sense that everything was okay, even
at my closing of the cover. Maybe Middleton reminds us that life itself
each day is a struggle to balance this and that. After reading this book
I felt settled and yet altogether unsure of anything.
This book was really different. I have never heard of it before nor
did
I know who Haydn Middleton was, and it was my first time reading it. I
liked
it, but it was very confusing. I was surprised by the vivid sexual
descriptions in the book because it was something I'm not used to. (I'm
used
to reading clean literature I guess) There are so many clues to whether
these
men are gay, bisexual, or straight, but I found myself trying to solve
their
sexualities. I Don't know why. One scene which I thought was sad was when
David's mother Mary dies. She was so young!!! And by the way, was she
raped
or did she just have an unusual first time sexual encounter with that man
waiting for her at her door? That was kind of scary.
To continue, I didn't think David's mother was raped until I got to the
part where it said that David's mother was raped in the book. Hmmm, very
confusing. This book has no shame it seems like. The bathroom scene
which
everyone else talked about was very disturbing I must say. Wow.
This may sound funny, but I tried to read the book with an
English
accent
and it sounded funny. This dark and mysterious story turned out to be a
farce
thanks to my funny accent. But anyhow, this book has so much substance.
I
think it is full of emotion, life, and drama. The characters definitely
have
some sort of psychological issues going on (especially with sex) and it
seems
like their relationships are questionable. I don't understand why David
is so
paranoid about his wife, Melissa, if he loves her. Am I wrong about this?
Well, everyone already seems to have expressed their opinions about the
Lie of
the Land and I agree with all of you. I don't know what more to say.
Overall, it was a very interesting book and a very easy read. The short
chapters helped the book to progress very fast.
Since my project is making a movie out of LOL, I think the book has
great
potential, especially in this day-in-age.
The novel as a whole was pretty good. I found myself getting more
and more interested in it as I read. I really liked the idea of a story
within a story, as most of my favorite authors do that as well.
Let me start with what I...questioned, rather than disliked about the
story. It is obvious that Quinn loved David, but it never seemed to me to
be of a homosexual nature. It just wasn't powerful enough for my
perspective. If anything, it was like a brotherly love more than anything
else. Granted that he was upset that David pretty much didn't return that
love in kind in his story, but even that didn't seem powerful enough to be
a romance.
To put it in a different light, the novel states that Quinn cared for
David, so much so that he followed him to make sure he was okay, and to
try to find out what was eating him. But it's a given fact that David
gave Quinn a place to stay, and so it seems that Quinn wanted to return
the favor by protecting David from harm. And somewhere in the process,
started to love him...as a close friend, or even as a brother. I'm not
ruling out homosexuality, but Quinn's love just doesn't seem to go that
deep.
On the other side of my response, I must say that my favorite part of
the novel was David's story. The use of mythology was fascinating. The
Island Lady was captivating, in the sense that I (understood?) David's
obsession with her. And since his mother shared the same vision of this
lady, it made her more real, rather than what Rachel and Quinn thought to
be a dramatized suicide note.
What was really interesting was David's obsession with this lady of
the island. To me, this lady was his version of Death, and he wanted to
be with her, to hold her, to sleep with her. Very erotic in a sense, and
I must say that it is a vision of Death that I can really admire.
Manywriters focus on Death one way or another, but this, possessive,
loving,
erotic version of Death is one that is not commonly seen. Similar visions
can be found in the poetry of Emily Dickinson and Jim Morrison, but not on
this great of a scale. I was very impressed with this Death, and
Middleton deserves praise for his vision.
These are the two points that I feel really strongly about. The rest
of the story was great, don't get me wrong, but this is what it left me
with, the love of Quinn and the story of David.
In studying Middleton's The Lie of the Land, I feel that this novel, as
with all novels, can be read on two levels. The first level, that of
which
I read for two years ago in the 1996 Summer Study in Oxford program, is
that of relationships. As I read the novel, I focused on the plot of the
story and on the way(s) in which the characters were related to this plot
and to one another. I examined the plot of the novel itself and the plot
of David's Story, and I examined the relationships that existed between
David Nennius and Quinn, between David and Melissa, between Rachel and
Matthew, between Rachel and David, etc.
The second level is the level for which I read this time. Already
familiar
with the plot of the story and the characters and their relationships, I
read for a deeper meaning. Somehow, amid the would-be chaos of the
surface
of the text, a meaning, a moral to the story, must exist. And although my
interpretation is certainly not the be-all and end-all of interpretations,
it allows me to make sense of The Lie of the Land.
What does that mean? The Lie of the Land? Two years ago, and even when I
started re-reading the novel this year, I thought that the title had
something to do with the physical appearance or layout of the land. And
now that I write this, maybe there is some truth to this. In this story,
the land consisted of two islands, Britain and Albion. The first island
was called Britain and was the land that the living but mortal humans,
people like you and me, inhabited. The second island was called Albion
and
was the inner island, "the island of rocky shores, where all things had
begun and all things would end," the island for the dead (p. 41).
As I began to read the novel this time, I thought nothing of the title
until I noticed two interesting quotes about the truth, and therefore
about
lies. The first occurred when Quinn went to do electrical work with
Nennius for a day and the two ended up at a girl's house to replace her
doorbell. Quinn was recalling the fact that he had turned this girl
awayfrom their own house at David's request when he realized that he
"hadn't
worried about lying; he saw the lies as part of a larger truth" (35). The
second appeared later when Rachel returned home from her Wednesday night
as
a Samaritan after meeting David at the bar. In her conversation with
Matthew, she said of his concern for her whereabouts "I told you a lie . .
. because I didn't want you to worry" (58). After noting these passages
about lies, I took note of others as well. By the end of the book, I
found
myself wondering what the lie of the land, the mother of all lies, was.
The conclusion that I came to was that the lie of the land was the lie
that
affected everyone - David, Quinn, Melissa, Art, Rachel, Matthew. The lie
was the one that David Nennius was living concerning the fact that he had
killed a man. Because David wouldn't/couldn't admit, to himself or to
others, that he had killed someone, he was living a lie. Because of this
lie, he could not allow himself to love or be loved. After he finally is
able to release this horror, telling Rachel his story, he concludes with
the statement "That's no lie" (263). From this point, he and the other
characters in the novel are able to begin mending their broken
relationships with one another.
Another aspect of the title The Lie of the Land concerns the myth of
Albion. Although I have not researched this a great deal, we are told
that
according to the book that William read to Mary while she was in labor
giving birth to David, "The island was a smiling woman, through whose
lovely features a hideousness flickered" and that "The sky drew itself out
into the shape of a man" (83). Mary describes the subsequent images in
her
mind as "the man upon the woman, sky upon island: their ceaseless, ever
more frantic coupling, as they sought to beget the race of immortals that
would inhabit the earth" (84). But the woman was barren, and when the man
procreated with the living, "the woman of the island learned of these
children fathered by the sky" (84). Could the woman, or land, have known
that "her labors of creation had used her up" and lied to the man, or sky,
in order to have sex with him and in order to claim these children for the
island, for her own (84)? Could this literally be the lie of the land
(woman)?
This also leads to the meaning of the curious phrase "I know you, I have
found you, and I will not let you go" (85). As I read the novel for the
second time, this statement seemed amazingly simple to understand. The
woman, or land, has claimed the sons of the sky as her own and made "them
perform, in the brightest light that sits forever upon the darkness, the
dance of death," the dance of Albion (85). So the woman calls to the
sons,
"I know you," because she knows that they are offspring of the man/sky.
She says "I have found you" because she has located them, and she "will
not
let [them] go" because they, of no choice of their own, will come to her
at
the end of their lives to dance and inhabit the island of Albion.
Finally, I also worked to determine the meaning of music and the role that
it played throughout the novel. From the very beginning of the story,
David and Matthew both seem to use music to escape the lies that they are
living, David when he disappeared in the basement and Matthew when he
retreated to his study (7, 27). Both men also resorted to writing, or
typing, to be more precise, a story of some kind when they escaped. When
listening to their music, these two characters seemed unreachable by those
who cared about them, possibly a symbol for the lies that they were
living.
In addition to David and Matthew, an interesting statement was mady by
Tana in her response regarding Rachel "facing the music" at the end of the
novel when she returns to Matthew's flat to tell him not only the end, but
the beginning and the middle of her encounter with David Nennius.
The Lie of the Land has provided its readers with an interesting and
challenging journey, to decipher not only the plot and the characters and
the relationships that they are involved in, but the greater meaning
behind
the plot and the characters as well. And I'm sure that as we have an
opportunity to discuss The Lie of the Land with its author, Haydn
Middleton, the journey has just begun!
There are two factors that made my reading of Lie of the Land a little
different from that of others in the Oxford group. The main factor that
made my reading slightly different was the fact that I had already read
The
Collapsing Castle. Though this is an entirely different story, I went
into
my reading of Lie of the Land somewhat experienced in Middleton's use of
relationships in his story telling. Just as in Collapsing Castle, I found
the relationships to be intense and at times very confusing. I found
myself most drawn to the relationship between David and Quinn. Like many
of the rest of you, I found myself questioning the sexuality of both men.
Even at the end of this novel, I felt that there was a deeper level to
their relationship that I did not understand.
Another factor that heavily influenced my reading of this book was
that
I
had transcribed a portion of an interview with Middleton in
which he speaks about this book. In the interview, it is stated that
at least one reviewer had written that the story was set in a different
place than Middleton intended. When questioned about this, Middleton
stated that he didn't mind simply because he wanted the story to
be universal-- he wanted people to place the story where they wanted.
I remembered this as I read the story, feeling as it is was truly
universal. I even pictured much of it taking place around St. Joseph!
Middleton's statement about how the book could be applied in a universal
manner forced me to see it from many different levels from
the very beginning. In the end, I think this made for a better reading
experience and a better overall understanding of the story.
Lie of the Land was very interesting. For me, it was one of those
novels that doesn't have a great impact until it is over. I was intrigued
by the story, but it didn't sweep me away. However, once I got to the end
and to Rachel's realization of her own beginning, middle and end, I
realized how profound Middleton's story was; and how significant the "lie"
was in the lives of the characters.
I see Nennius as someone who was very naive about his life
and his
existence. This comes through in what is ultimately the lie. It is that
Nennius did not realize until it was too late that his life was within his
control and not under the watch of some mysterious force. What Middleton
is so brilliantly able to show in this work is that each person, as they
live their lives, is involved in situations that are either within or
without their control. The ultimate lie is believing that everything is
outside of one's control. This is exactly what Nennius does. He creates
a third person, the dark, mysterious woman, then makes her ultimately
responsible for the events which occur in his life.
Throughout his life he puts his own consciousness at arm's
length.
He refuses to give himself to Melissa and his child, because of nothing
more than a fantasy. Nennius' act of murder isn't even motivated by his
own loathing of the man and the hideous act he committed against his son.
He is motivated by the misconception that he is simply playing a part,
that killing this man is the dark event the woman had brought him to. As
the story moves on, it appears as if Nennius almost embraces this
helplessness. It certainly keeps him from interacting in a real way with
the people in his life.
However, no matter how hard Nennius tries to succumb or
exclude
himself from reality, he still finds himself entangled in a web of lives.
Quinn becomes very attached to Nennius and by his own actions creates
consequences to Nennius' life. Rachel is certainly the most influential.
I would say that she had more impact on Nennius' life than the woman. She
reached out to him in a very basic human way and very much effected the
outcome of the situation; and at the same time, Nennius created a story
for her, consequences in her life.
Ultimately, I don't know for sure if Nennius truly
understood what
he had given up by not realizing his own power, though I think everyone
involved in the story of his life finally embraced a sense of control.
Perhaps each of us do at some point understand that we own our actions and
sometimes even the consequences. At the end of the day, the lie of the
land becomes the lie we tell ourselves, which is that our lives are not
our own.
