Review of THE MEMORY OF ANIMALS by Claire Fuller (New Release)

3.5 Stars

I’ve read three of Claire Fuller’s previous novels (Swimming Lessons, Unsettled Ground, and Our Endless Numbered Days) and enjoyed them so I looked forward to reading her latest.  This dystopian novel didn’t impress me as much as the others.

During a devastating global pandemic, Neffy, a 27-year-old marine biologist, has registered for an experimental vaccine for a disease which in its latest iteration causes edema, memory loss, and sensory damage before leading to death.  The vaccine test is suspended when staff abandons the medical facility in London where the test subjects are housed.  Neffy finds herself safe from the chaos in the outside world but confined with four other young people:  Rachel, Leon, Yahiko, and Piper.  The five must figure out how to live together; fragile alliances are formed and shattered, and interpersonal conflicts arise.  Neffy feels that the others are keeping secrets from her.  Since she is the only volunteer who actually received the vaccine, pressure gradually builds for her to leave the facility to restock food supplies. 

Neffy spends time writing in a journal addressed to H; in it she writes about her love of octopuses.  She also becomes interested in a technology invented by Leon which allows users to intensely re-experience memories.  She is increasingly drawn to the machine which allows her to revisit her childhood, a love affair, and her work with octopuses. 

Though described as a novel about survival, it does not develop as expected.  Danger, action, violence, and survival struggles are minimal.  The middle section in particular is slow paced.  The five test volunteers manage quite well, though food supplies are limited.  The only real suspense revolves around if/when Neffy will venture out.  The conclusion, on the other hand, feels hurried.  Twice near the end there are major time jumps so much is skimmed over.  After the day-to-day structure, these time gaps are jarring. 

Neffy is the most fully developed character.  She has not made the wisest of life choices.  It didn’t occur to her that when she took a job at an aquarium she would be working with captive sea animals?  When faced with difficulties, her tendency is to run away, to escape.  Revisiting the past, therefore, is something she cannot resist; she becomes addicted to the experience, though she tries to justify her behaviour by asking whether people “’can learn from the past?  See things differently, or let it help us decide what we do in the future?’”  Her watching a piece of litter begin blown around foreshadows her personal growth:  “Its meandering journey is a tale of doubling back and indecisiveness, while all the time having no choice but to be pushed forward because the invisible wind says to go back is only an illusion.”

The other test volunteers are only sketchily developed.  I found it difficult to distinguish Rachel from Piper.  Their coping mechanisms are interesting.  Some seem to be in state of shock; some dream of rescue and happy reunions; some hoard objects from the world they knew; and some endlessly scroll through photos from their earlier lives.

Neffy’s obsession with an octopus held in captivity is obviously intended to suggest parallels between the animal and Neffy’s situation.  Both are confined and subjected to experiments.  Captivity affects an animal’s psychological and physical health, as does confinement affect the humans within the medical facility.  Neffy even asks, “Does freedom win over containment, even with all its risks, including death?” 

There are some elements that bothered me.  Neffy’s journal, written in the form of letters intended for H, is strange, especially once H’s identity is revealed.  These entries seem to serve little purpose but teach us about octopuses.  There’s a mystery surrounding the reason for Neffy’s dismissal from her job and the reason for her debt, but the solution is not surprising in the least.  The novel lacks cohesion; the three narrative threads (present, past, and the journal for H) don’t work together to develop theme.  Perhaps a commonality is an examination of our ethical obligation to help others if doing so endangers our lives, but the scattered, unfocused approach means the reader has to try very hard to find connections. 

I was disappointed in the novel.  It’s not bad, just not as polished as the author’s other books. 

Note:  I received a digital galley from the publisher via NetGalley.