Reading the 20th Century discussion

Welcome to our July 2021 group read of....


Troubles by J.G. Farrell

Winner of the Lost Man Booker Prize

This discussion will open on or around 1 July 2021

1919: After surviving the Great War, Major Brendan Archer makes his way to Ireland, hoping to discover whether he is indeed betrothed to Angela Spencer, whose Anglo-Irish family owns the once-aptly-named Majestic Hotel in Kilnalough. But his fiancée is strangely altered and her family's fortunes have suffered a spectacular decline. The hotel's hundreds of rooms are disintegrating on a grand scale; its few remaining guests thrive on rumors and games of whist; herds of cats have taken over the Imperial Bar and the upper stories; bamboo shoots threaten the foundations; and piglets frolic in the squash court. Meanwhile, the Major is captivated by the beautiful and bitter Sarah Devlin. As housekeeping disasters force him from room to room, outside the order of the British Empire also totters: there is unrest in the East, and in Ireland itself the mounting violence of "the troubles."

Troubles is a hilarious and heartbreaking work by a modern master of the historical novel.

July is here, so let's open this discussion up. Who is reading this one? I am about 25% through and enjoying its quirkiness and the vivid characters.

I currently don't plan to read this one however could well be swayed by the discussion.

I notice it got a lot of support in our poll to decide which Booker Prize winner to read and discuss, so I am hopeful that this will be another lively and interesting group read.

I am. I have both the audiobook and the e-book so I will be alternating between the two. I listened to 6% and enjoying it so far. I think that the descriptions of the mansion and surroundings were a bit too detailed and some of them went over my head. The subtle humor is enjoyable.

I will certainly follow the discussion and chip in, but don't yet know if I'll manage to find time for a reread - I'd like to reread the whole trilogy/quartet together some time, but that would be a much bigger commitment.

I have to admit that I found this a bit of a struggle. It was well written, it was clever, but I just found myself not caring very much what happened.

I enjoyed it, and I'm not entirely sure why.

The writing was certainly good and there were some marvellously funny scenes and imagery, particularly associated with the increasingly poor condition of the Majestic, along with its seemingly infinite number of rooms and staircases and incomprehensible layout.

Still, for a novel at a key political time it wasn't at all political. And the characters were odd but largely two dimensional. I never understood the Major, or Angela or Sarah. Was the Major simply a psychological victim of the war? Was he just too English for my American brain?

And were the mysteries of Sarah and Angela a failure on the part of the novelist to write three dimensional women, a consequence of seeing them through the Major's limited understanding, or my own failure (either as a reader or as a man)?

At this point I have more questions than answers.

I agree, Ben, I have more questions than answers as well. This was an almost surreal story of completely clueless people who have no lives mooching off a man who’s too weak to make them leave but too poor to take care of them. They never pay, never leave, never help, just come to stay and then hang around. I think of them as a representation of the British Empire, coasting passively along as the world changes.

I really enjoyed the humor and the satire and didn’t expect to laugh out loud! The humor faded as the novel went on, as the political upheaval got closer to home, and I wondered if the initial funny sections were one way the author portrayed the cluelessness of the upper class? The characters themselves sure didn’t have any sense of humor!

(view spoiler)[I don’t understand the purpose of the women in this story, except as they served to keep the Major living at the manor. What was the purpose of Angela’s dying? She was almost non-existent, but maybe she was an easy way to introduce how passive the Major was? And what was the point of Sarah’s being in a wheelchair and then miraculously being able to walk? Again I wonder if she served to show the Major’s passivity, not only while they lived in the same house but later when she was rumored to have married an abusive man and the Major never considered trying to help her. Is his passivity due to PTSD? I originally thought so, but when the characters seemed just as passive, it made me wonder.>/spoiler>

The old servant Murphy is one of the most interesting personalities in the novel - I need to ponder him some more. He may been demented but at least he had personality!

These aren't complaints - I really enjoyed this and am glad I read it. Quite a bit to think about. (hide spoiler)]

Margaret wrote: "I agree, Ben, I have more questions than answers as well. This was an almost surreal story of completely clueless people who have no lives mooching off a man who’s too weak to make them leave but t..." Hi Margaret, I am not sure what the rules are on this group but I think it would be useful to announce in advance if there is going to be a spoiler so early in the conversation. There might be readers like me that only read a few pages ( I read 12%) and haven’t reached the passage you mentioned about the death of a character. I stoped there so I am not sure what else you wrote, I will come back to your comment later. I know after a while everybody is free to discuss spoilers but I am not sure when is that point. I hope you are ok I mentioned this.

I'm sorry, usually if there are separate spoiler and non-spoiler threads the thread will indicate that, so when it wasn't mentioned I thought all comments were allowed.

If a book has just started it is a little early to post spoilers since most won't have read it yet. Better to use the spoiler tags (<>). Although frequently there is a separate thread set up.

I have it on kindle and have started it. Not very far in, I don't think.

Apologies too from me if I started the discussion too early.

Good comments, Margaret. I had very similar reactions.

I look forward to more discussion when more have finished the book.

Spoilers below.

Perhaps wrongly, I do get impatient and dissatisfied with characterisation in novels where the characters are meant to stand for ideas, rather than have independent life. I felt that the Majestic itself had as much life in it as the characters, but it makes perfect sense if they are all representative of the fading empire. Still, I would have preferred to see them develop as the novel proceeded.

We don't normally have a separate spoiler thread, but I am happy to set one up, if the consensus agree it would be a good thing?

I do not think it is necessary, Susan. Just a short mention should be enough so we know we continue at our own risk. If I remember well my first buddy read, at around the middle of the month the whole book was discussed freely but it was a consensus at some point.

Ben, your comments were more general and I do not feel there was any need to tag anything.

I haven't started yet, hope to make a start tonight or tomorrow.

We tend to be informal about when different people start reading so yes, it's helpful to just flag ahead, as Ben has done, if you're going to post spoilers and then those of us who are trailing can skim past :) If I'm commenting while still reading, I also try to head my post with the chapter where I am so again people can read or wait depending on where they are.

Roman Clodia wrote: "I haven't started yet, hope to make a start tonight or tomorrow.

We tend to be informal about when different people start reading so yes, it's helpful to just flag ahead, as Ben has done, if you'..." Good luck with that here :)) There are only two long chapters!

Adina wrote: "Good luck with that here :)) There are only two long chapters!"

Haha - you can tell I haven't even opened the book yet :)

I listened on Audible, so perhaps that worked better then :)

p.11

I've just started and think I'm going to like this a lot. It's interesting that the Majestic is already burnt down when the book opens and so we're going back to a story that is in the past - and I enjoyed the comic touches like the 'prodigious number of... lavatory bowls' found in the ruins. But the juxtaposition of comedy and tragedy is already in play.

Also the scene where the major kisses Angela: ''They had kissed behind a screen of leaves and, reaching out to steady himself, he had put his hand down firmly on a cactus, which had rendered many of his parting words insincere." A lovely undercutting of a potentially romantic moment with absurdity.

16% I start to struggle a bit and the main reason is that I do not find any of the characters’ behavior believable. I am not sure if it is meant to be absurd or I am supposed to believe people behave like this. I sometimes feel like I am watching a South American telenovela where everybody talks too late and move around in circles. I suspect it is intentional and I should laugh but I am not sure yet.

I've read about 60% (into the second long chapter) and am enjoying the book a lot overall, although finding it slightly repetitive at times, for instance in the sheer build-up of detail about the steady disintegration of the hotel.

What does anyone think of the newspaper articles between the small sections of narrative? I think they are quite effective in giving a feel of the world beyond the Majestic, and what is happening overall in both Ireland and the wider empire.

I agree with Margaret's comment that the crumbling hotel is an emblem of the British Empire. I thought at first I had read it before, but I think maybe it's just that I have read other novels with similarly crumbling/declining Anglo-Indian households and buildings.

Adina wrote: "16% I start to struggle a bit and the main reason is that I do not find any of the characters’ behavior believable. I am not sure if it is meant to be absurd ..."

Adina, I think you are right that it's absurd and I feel this is deliberate - the novel has a slightly black comedy/over-the-top quality, with things like the ever-increasing number of cats wandering around the top floor and the trees growing into the building. I have struggled a bit at times but am really into it now, so hope you enjoy it too as you carry on.

Like Hugh and Nigey still trying to decide whether to join in and reread this or not, but think that it's not intended to be a 'believable' characters book, it's very much a mix of parody and satire. I'm not sure it's as successful in that as The Siege of Krishnapur my favourite of his novels but it comes close.

My personal favourite is The Singapore Grip, but I have a suspicion I might reconsider if I reread them all together - I read The Siege of Krishnapur a couple of years before the other two and The Hill Station. For me satire was Farrell's greatest strength, but his humour can be very black and unsparing.

Yes although I find his brand of humour particularly appealing, not sure what that says about my tastes. At times it reminds me of early Evelyn Waugh.

Yes, I was thinking Waugh too in terms of the rather cruel humour ('unsparing' is spot on, Hugh), and agree that this isn't at all a realist narrative. The Majestic is surely as much allegory for the British Empire as an actual hotel? And how can the story be anything other than both absurd and tragicomic?

An interesting contrast might be Bowen's The Last September which also uses the concept of the Anglo-Irish 'big house' in around 1919 but which is far more subtle in terms of the personal relationships between the inhabitants.

I haven't read that RC will look it out, there's a similar dilapidated pile in Caroline Blackwood's Great Granny Webster Dunmartin Hall in Ulster.

I'm enjoying Farrell's style a lot. I like the clever way that though this is set in Ireland rather than more distant sites of British Imperialism, he uses the imagery of over-grown greenery and lack of cultivation to draw parallels between them:

A standard lamp at his elbow, for instance, had been throttled by a snake of greenery that had circled up its slender metal stem as far as the black bulb that crowned it like a bulging eyeball.

Add to that, the fact that the servant is called, of course, Murphy, and that as soon as he's left the room:

"In a lot of ways they're like children," Boy O'Neill said at length and his wife assented."

I love that snarky juxtaposition between 'children' attached to the native Irishman and 'Boy' as a nickname! It's used in Love in a Cold Climate, of course, to indicate a man who's handsome and young-looking (but with darker proclivities...) so may carry class connotations as well.

Alwynne wrote: "I haven't read that RC will look it out."

We did The Last September as a buddy read, thread here but do be aware of spoilers in the later posts: www.goodreads.com/topic/show/21330331...

On that cruel humour a number of people have mentioned:

He had resolved to cultivate the cook, spend sufficient time with her to get to understand her dialect, accent or speech infirmity, whichever it was
- ouch! But such a brilliant piece of characterisation of the major.

I was also struck by that grotesque scene where Edward Spencer ties the dead chicken around his dog's neck and we learn:
the major [was] somewhat disturbed by this administration of justice.
- surely a comment on the heavy-handed way that the British government executed the leaders of the Easter 1916 Rising?

Judy wrote: "What does anyone think of the newspaper articles between the small sections of narrative? I think they are quite effective in giving a feel of the world beyond the Majestic, and what is happening overall in both Ireland and the wider empire."

Yes, I agree: life in the hotel is so insular and claustrophobic that we need those articles to orient ourselves. They also serve to undercut the political views expressed by, say, Edward Spencer who treats the struggle for independence as something a bit weird and minor.

Structurally, this is interesting as the Major is like the innocent character who walks into a house and situation where he's the only one who doesn't understand the history or parameters of what's going on around him: a bit like Mr Lockwood in Wuthering Heights or even Jane Eyre when she arrives at Thornfield; and subverted in Flora Poste who comes to Cold Comfort Farm and puts everything to right.

Roman Clodia wrote: "Structurally, this is interesting as the Major is like the innocent character who walks into a house and situation where he's the only one who doesn't understand the history or parameters of what's going on around him..."

Great point - the Major gives a way in for the reader, like the English character who often arrives at the start of a Scottish historical novel by Scott and has to have the current conflict and rivalries explained to him.

It's striking that the Major can't tear himself away from the hotel as the story progresses, despite being increasingly frustrated by Edward's refusal to run things properly or address the important issues, such as the pieces of stonework falling from the building.

Roman Clodia wrote: "On that cruel humour a number of people have mentioned: ..."

This isn't a major spoiler but I will put it in tags as it is an example of this humour which happens later in the book.

(view spoiler)[On the cruel humour, as well as the chicken tied around the dog's neck, there is Edward's bizarre scientific research in his lab, where he wants to look at the effects of hunger and thirst and feels it would be reasonable for Murphy to risk his life by doing things like swallowing a balloon.

Meanwhile, Edward ironically ignores the plight of the hungry and thirsty people around him, both the hotel guests waiting for tea and the starving locals rooting in the bins. (hide spoiler)]

Haha! Another example of that absurd/cruel humour which I'm also putting in spoilers:

(view spoiler)[When Edward Spenser comes across the threatening sign put up by the Republicans and neither he nor the major can reach to scape it down, so he suggests standing on the shoulders of the doddery and frail old Murphy and then is furious as the old man slides away though cannot refuse outright.

Also the blind grandmother who comes out of the cupboard for meals - a really bleak humour. (hide spoiler)]

Finished! I thought this sagged a bit in the middle towards the end of the first section where the lack of plot drivers became a bit of an issue for me but then it picks up again in the second section.

My review is here - I don't talk about plot so no spoilers: www.goodreads.com/review/show/4091196195

There's something very individual about Farrell's writing style that I like: we've mentioned Waugh's cruel humour already but there's also something Dickensian to me about some of the characters like the larger-than-life Edward Spenser and the intertwining of social commentary and farcical comedy.

These are all such good comments!

Can anyone explain Angela and Sarah to me? Are they simply mysterious, illogical inconsistent females, literary devices adding comic tension and making the Major's cluelessness and helplessness ever more extreme, or is there a broader meaning or symbolism to their place in the story?

Ben wrote: "Can anyone explain Angela and Sarah to me?"

I was also puzzled by Angela - is she the effete product of Anglo-Irish in-breeding?

I loved Sarah in the first half as the sardonic Catholic and with the clearest view of the history and situation which she's confident enough to share with the major. So I was disappointed that she fades out of the story later. And the whole wheelchair/walking business was weird.

So I'm no help, I'm afraid :) Anyone else got any ideas?

I have just finished. My assessment of this book is pretty similar to Susan's "It was well written, it was clever, but I just found myself not caring very much what happened." I presume part of my disinterest in the book's events and characters was because, as Alwynne says "it's not intended to be a 'believable' characters book, it's very much a mix of parody and satire."
The result here may be something clever but, as with the more explicit satire of Cold Comfort Farm and Waugh, I don't think I fully appreciate it. I may have smiled a few times, but never came close to a laugh or snigger.
I thought the setting and characters that Farrell chose for this book to be quite unusual, as Margaret stated, almost surreal. It certainly wasn't what I was expecting from a book about The Troubles period in Ireland. In hindsight, as Farrell's trilogy is about the 'collapse' of the British Empire. maybe I should have anticipated something like this - a story about a crumbling hotel and populated largely by Brits and Anglo-Irish Protestants.

I've just finished the section about the ball and its aftermath, which I think is surreal, as you say, Brian. I also find it quite visually vivid, with details like the blood-red stair carpet which suddenly ends part of the way up the stairs.

I think I've been reading the book too slowly (now at 84%) and should probably have let myself get more caught up in it, but I'm enjoying it nonetheless.

Brian wrote: "I may have smiled a few times, but never came close to a laugh or snigger."

My take is that it's not that kind of humour: I found it savage and cruel as it ticks off and exposes the concepts on which empire is built, and the way it clings on in the face of rebellion and history.

We've mentioned Waugh earlier in terms of humour but I was also thinking of Samuel Beckett - it's not quite the existential tragicomedy of Waiting for Godot but something of that absurdity of imperial/colonial existence made a connection in my mind.

Roman Clodia wrote: "My take is that it's not that kind of humour: I found it savage and cruel as it ticks off and exposes the ..."

You are right about the humor. My comment was more of a reply as another reader mentioned laughing at the satire. While reading this book, I would not have characterized this as humorous at all. I really only recalled the humor when prompted by reading the posts on this thread after I finished the book.
I do wonder if, by being American, I miss some of the subtle satire and also don't have the same level of feelings British readers have in reading about some of the not-so positive aspects of their country's empirical history.

I just started the book today. I’m glad the group selected this book since I bought it, on a whim, last December along with a bunch of other books, mostly modern classics. I rarely buy new books but I was so excited to go somewhere besides the grocery store that I went a bit crazy at Barnes & Noble! This is the first of my Dec purchased books that I’ve picked up to read. So far, I’m really enjoying the writing. I know very little about this time period which is why I wanted to read the book, in the first place. Look forward to being able to finally participate in a group discussion! I’m not as fast a reader as some of you, though.

Brian wrote: "I do wonder if, by being American, I miss some of the subtle satire and also don't have the same level of feelings British readers have in reading about some of the not-so positive aspects of their country's empirical history."

Possibly, Brian - though Britain's imperial history is pretty divisive in the UK with plenty of people thinking it's still something of which we should be unequivocally proud.

I certainly didn't do Irish history at school or the struggle for Irish independence - and Americans, given the Irish diaspora, sometimes seem to be better informed about this aspect of history than we are.

No rush Pam, we leave all the threads open so take your time, and look forward to your thoughts on this book.

Roman Clodia wrote: ".I certainly didn't do Irish history at school or the struggle for Irish independence - and Americans, given the Irish diaspora, sometimes seem to be better informed about this aspect of history than we are.."

I did grow up in a fairly Irish Catholic southwest side Chicago suburb. A few of the nuns who taught me had been born in Ireland. However, I never did learn much about the complex circa 1920 Irish struggles until reading internet articles as background while reading the three major Seán O'Casey plays last year. Each of his plays occurred in a different period of these struggles.

1926's The Plough and the Stars - set in the Easter Rising -1916;
1923's The Shadow of a Gunman - set in Irish War of Independence 1919-1921;
1924's Juno and the Paycock - set in Irish Civil War 1922-1923;

I think I did learn there was an Irish Civil War following the War of Independence by watching the movie Michael Collins, though.
Last year, I also learned more about the the late 1960s to 1990s period in Northern Ireland called the Troubles, while reading Milkman, which I read due to the reviews from readers in this GR group. My previous knowledge of this period was also from seeing a movie, Paul Greengrass' 2002 movie, Bloody Sunday. All of these tales are of the Irish conflicts as experienced by Irish Catholics rather than through the eyes of Anglo-Irish or Brits.

I have now finished the novel - I thought it was excellent, but it may take a little while for me to get my head around it as a whole, so to speak. I think it becomes increasingly surreal in the later sections.

I’m around 2/3 through now so popped in here to read the comments. I really enjoy Farrell’s dark satire although I agree that the book drags slightly in the middle. I have laughed at some of the absurd situations, like (view spoiler)[ the Major reading naked in the linen room. (hide spoiler)] I’m also quite intrigued by the conflict between the Major and Edward, two different views of the British towards the Irish.

I’m rather alarmed about the proliferation of cats taking over the building, they seem quite demonic. The smell must be horrific!

Judy, I also like the newspaper articles that draw our attention to what is going on in the outside world both in Ireland and across the wider Empire, and also emphasise how isolated and out-of-touch the Majestic and its occupants are as the attacks and reprisals escalate.

I also finished the novel. I agree with Brian's opinion. I realize it is a valuable novel but I could not appreciate it fully. I did not find it funny (I usually like this type of dark humor) and It failed to grab me.