4.5 Stars
This book has been described as speculative fiction, social
commentary, and a literary detective story. Regardless of how it’s
classified, if it’s written by Ian McEwan, I know it’ll be worth
reading.
There are dual
timelines just over a century apart. In 2014 at his wife Vivian’s
birthday dinner attended by a few friends, renowned poet Francis
Blundy reads aloud a sequence of 15 sonnets, a corona, he wrote for
her. The poem is never published; Vivian is given the only copy.
For generations people have speculated about this corona, a copy of
which has never been found, but it is generally regarded as the great
lost poem of the climate crisis.
In 2119, in the
aftermath of a hydrogen bomb disaster in 2042, much of the western
world has been submerged by rising seas and Britain is now an
archipelago. In the south of what used to be England, Thomas
Metcalfe, a humanities scholar, has dedicated himself to finding “A
Corona for Vivian.” He pores over print and digital archives and
considers himself an expert on the lives of Francis and Vivian
Blundy: “I know all that they knew – and more, for I know some of
their secrets and their futures, and the dates of their deaths.”
When led to a site which he believes is the hiding spot for the
corona, he uncovers a truth he had not expected.
This first part of
the novel is narrated by Thomas in the first person. He makes clear
that he is captivated by Vivian, so much so that his relationship
with his partner Rose is affected. Besides his obsession with the
poem, he has an almost obsessive nostalgia for Francis and Vivian’s
time period which is, of course, our era: “The Blundys and their
guests lived in what we would regard as a paradise. There were more
flowers, trees, insects, birds and mammals in the wild . . . The
wines . . . were superior to ours, their food was certainly more
delicious and varied and came from all over the world. The air they
breathed was purer and less radioactive. Their medical services . .
. were better resourced and organized.”
It is this
re-creation of our era as seen from a dystopian future which I found
very interesting. Thomas summarizes our time: “What brilliant
invention and bone-headed greed. . . . people flying 2,000 miles for
a one-week vacation . . . razing ancient forests to make paper to
wipe their backsides . . . they watched amazed as the decades sped by
and . . . the weapons proliferated and they did little, even as they
knew what was coming and what was needed.” The term Derangement is
used, “a shorthand for the usual list of global heating’s
consequences . . . [but the term also hints] at collective
responsibility for our innate cognitive bias in favour of short-term
comfort over long-term benefits. Humanity itself was deranged.”
Thomas also comments that in that past, “many of humanity’s
problems would have been solved. When too few understood how sublime
their natural and man-made worlds were.” Rose argues that Thomas
ignores the past’s “squalor and cruelty and morbid greed” and
lists a litany of problems with our behaviour: “The stupidity and
waste . . . the nastiness of social media, then run for profit rather
than as a public service . . . the self-serving short-sightedness or
plain folly or mendacity or viciousness of political leaders . . .
the quiescence or craven idiocy or terror of their populations . . .
people’s careless love of autocrats . . . the poisons they left in
the oceans, the forests they stole, the soils and rivers they ruined
and the Derangement they acknowledged but would not prevent.” The
message for us is abundantly clear.
As the title
suggests, the novel asks what we can really know. Thomas is
convinced of his knowledge based on his perusal of journals and
letters and the digital data such as emails and texts. In fact, he
feels burdened by the amount of research material at his disposal:
“three million internet mentions of Francis Blundy in his lifetime,
the 219,000 messages that were written to him and by him and the
near-infinite references since.” When writing about the Blundys
and the corona, especially the birthday dinner, Thomas decides it is
acceptable “where the source material did not exist . . . to make
educated guesses about the subjective states and lines of thought of
people who had died a hundred years ago. . . . When faced with the
essential but undisclosed inner life, invent within the confines
of the probable.” He regards it “an essential freedom to
speculate, infer, make educated guesses and animate circumstances and
states of mind with the reasonable projection of a common humanity
unchanged across the intervening century” because his duty “is
to vitality, to convey the experience of lived and felt life.”
Rose, on the other hand, disagrees and argues that Thomas’ “only
duty is to the truth . . . whereof you do not know, therof you must
be silent.”
Vivian is the
narrator in the second part and what she reveals suggests that there
are boundaries to our understanding; in fact, we can know very
little. Random details and records, even personal ones, may not tell
the entire story. I keep a journal but can I really say that it’s
unbiased or that I haven’t lied by omission? Trying to extrapolate
motives, feelings, the full truth, from a series of disparate sources
may mean that we are like Francis: our certitude may suggest
brilliance but actually indicates our foolishness. The next time I
read a biography, I will remember McEwan’s caveat.
There is so much in
this book, so much I could parse. There’s the complex
characterization where everyone has both positive and negative
traits, and there’s more nuance to characters than initially shown.
In the end I found no one really likeable, but that’s okay.
There’s humour: “inter-racial marriage increased to the extent
that within a mere three or four generations, the descendants of many
whites have realised the old sunbathers’ dream.” And there are
more ideas explored that I haven’t even touched on. In other
words, this is another Ian McEwan masterpiece.
Note: I received an
eARC from the publisher via NetGalley.