In Praise of Barbara Comyns

Below, an excerpt from Malvern fave Taisia Kitaiskaia’s wonderful look at the work of English writer Barbara Comyns (you can read the full article here). We stock all of the books Taisia mentions, and we heartily echo her sentiments—Comyns is a fascinating writer and well worth checking out.

Fiction can be frustrating because, while very diverting, it often manages to exclude 99 percent of life on earth. Driven by plot and obsessed with psychology, modern novels tend to behave as if social and human relationships are the only things that matter, as if outer space doesn’t exist, Neanderthals never walked alongside our ancestors, deep-sea fish don’t swim in the dark with their treacherous lights, and our lives aren’t mostly just irrational streams of little pleasures, comforts and discomforts, sleep and dreams. Realist novels especially are disappointingly devoid of creatureliness—that wild, quick, raw stuff we are made of.

But sometimes I come across novelists whose work is alive with wildness. Barbara Comyns is one of these. An underlooked British author of 10 novels—also a painter, mother, evident beauty, breeder of poodles, seller of cars, and doer of other weird jobs to get by—Comyns (1907–1992) has seen a revival of attention after the recent reprinting of her 1985 novel The Juniper Tree. While I hope that this revival earns Comyns’s name a permanent place in the canon, so many women writers are forgotten again even shortly after being remembered. I want to cry, “Read this writer, she deserves it!” But Comyns, dead and gone, doesn’t care if you read her books. It’s you who is missing out.

It’s not as if Comyns’s characters are always pondering Neanderthals (they’re much too stressed), and her novels do sit comfortably enough on the realist shelf. Yet these books are unmistakably feral, thrumming with sinister enchantment and the magical-grotesque possibilities of transformation. When I first encountered Comyns, it was through Who Was Changed and Who Was Dead, which tells of a strange episode in an English village. I finished the short novel in one sitting and then stumbled outside, the book still in my hand. It was almost too alive to either hold or set down, so the thing sweated in my palm like a deranged, flooded, purple Polly Pocket, where a shifty gardener emerges from under the bridge with the body of a dead child, the plastic fairy stands with only one cellophane wing, a power-thirsty grandma hits at crows with her cane, and a tender baker weeps somewhere in the painted distance.

Comyns should have made it into Literary Witches: A Celebration of Magical Women Writers, my collaboration with artist Katy Horan, as she is one of the witchlier writers I’ve read. In addition to her work’s elusive feeling of magic and focus on domesticity—that enduring arena of the witch—it’s Comyns’s creatureliness that most qualifies her. Her books contain an astonishing number of wild things: slugs, insects, eggs, drowning peacocks, paddling pigs, mongooses in kitchens, ducks in drawing-rooms. Creeks and woods and lakes. And, most thrilling of all, her creaturely humans: the barefooted, unsupervised children muddying themselves by the river; the “beastly” (that great Britishism) power-holders, terrorizing and betraying; men and women described as kittens, birds, horses, and even named Mr. Fox; and the shivering animal selves of the female protagonists, hounded but seeking security and reprieve.

Her narratives themselves are wild beings of astonishing velocity and presence, fleeting, unstudied (Comyns was educated haphazardly by governesses in her own deranged Polly Pocket childhood, as described in her 1947 novel Sisters by a River). Her first person narratives are nearly breathless, the sentences like mice scurrying along the edge of the room, single-minded in their pursuit of survival: trying to please, trying not to be noticed, or to be noticed by the right people, trying to scrape by, scared they won’t make it. Comyns’s protagonists, too, are trying to survive, skirting around poverty and vicious, lousy men. These women tell their tales as a mouse might, if you stopped it in its tracks: matter of factly and without self-pity. The narrator of The Vet’s Daughter, Comyns’s most famous book, says of her father: “When I think of him kicking Mother’s front teeth crooked so early in their marriage, it really was a mercy he ignored me, or I might have had a cauliflower ear, or something equally disfiguring.”

Creatures can go many ways. They can be innocent, like the mice skirting around the patriarchy, and they can be beastly like the patriarchy itself. Many of Comyns’s characters are beastly, whether in outright cruelty, as with the father in The Vet’s Daughter, who not only physically and verbally abuses his family, but also sells many of his veterinary subjects to the vivisectionist; or in neglect, as with the autobiographical husband in Our Spoons Came from Woolworths, an arrogant painter who abandons his family. In Who Was Changed: “‘Father makes me hate men,’ thought Emma as she pumped water into the bucket. A slug tumbled out of the pump and she caught it and put it in a dark damp corner of the sink.” The viciousness of the patriarchy has never been so clear as in these books. But what is pleasing about Comyns’s novels is that they’re above easy moralizing, presenting the beasts as they come, knowing that they will sink and die and be reborn again as other creatures.

That leads me to Comyns’s enchantment. There isn’t much explicit magic in her books: The Vet’s Daughter is the only one with unexplained phenomena (and boy, is it wonderful) and The Juniper Tree is intentionally based on a fairy-tale. But all of her books feel like they’re set in the woods even when they take place in towns or cities, and in both the bleakest and most hopeful Comyns moments there is the ripe sense that everything could change. For better or worse, too, many of her novels follow the fairy-tale trope of women saved from poverty and pain by marriage. That the world can be enchanted without also being just or pleasant feels about right. Certainly there are writers who set their books in more thoroughly wild settings, and writers who use fairy tales and folklore more avidly and violently (like that other beastly Brit, Angela Carter). But this is what makes Comyns great: She demonstrates that as we carry out ordinary lives in cities, as we run around and try to make ends meet and find partners and friendly souls, we are little animals there, too… (continue reading).

Staff Picks: Joy of Missing Out

Julie recommends Joy of Missing Out by Ana Božičević:

Walking home from the first meeting of Line/Break (Malvern’s Poetry Book Club) I reveled in—and interrogated—a line from ol’ Walt Whitman, “Have you ever felt proud to get at the meaning of poems?”

Nope, not really. OK, well, maybe sometimes, but mostly, Great Godfather of American Poetry, poems leave me feeling stupid, wonderfully, happily stupid. What I end up understanding is only an outline, a shadow, a sense of all the ways in which a poem can inhabit feeling. It’s like holding hands with a ghost, and I love ghosts! If I do “get” a poem it’s usually a pretty bad one—far too easy to make sense of. I prefer mystification. 

I can’t help it, I’m utterly wedded to the idea that poems encourage alternative ways of thinking, they invite and embolden us to ask, “What if the world was this way?” In Joy of Missing Out Ana Božičević could have, at some point, asked herself several what if questions. What if there were poems out there that spoke about late-night lonely lurkings on the Interweb? What if mental illness was spoken about openly? What if flat, innocuous words like “like,” “emoji,” “facebook” could be infused with new meaning? What if it were possible to pump fresh blood into a term like “LOL” which, at this point, might as well be a laughed-out corpse? 

People, poets I mean, write about popular culture every day. Božičević has written poems with titles like “The Day Lady Gaga Died” (see Rise in the Fall). Others have dedicated entire works to a single pop figure (see Letters to Kelly Clarkson by Julia Block, or Mr. West by Sara Blake). Even what pops up on news feeds becomes fodder for poems. (See Daylight Savings Time Flies Like an Instagram of a Weasel Riding a Woodpecker & You Feel Everything Will Be Alright by Regie Cabico.) And now, anyone can be a pop figure. Social media has created hybrid famous people, “influencers,” and celebrity cats. We are a culture, in many ways, obsessed with technology, deriding it, revering it, needing it, shunning it. Google churns out more information than anyone could ever hope to absorb with just one measly brain. 

This is to say that, in the hands of a lesser poet, poems riddled with tech speak risk becoming imitations of imitations. The <3 imitates a smooch, deeper meaning can only go so far, unless you’re Božičević and you shape a book of poems around bigger ideas: love, loss, loneliness, and perhaps most importantly, estrangement, the feeling of being locked out of your own life. In the poem “S’cool,” she writes:

The last line echoes the elision in the title. The “s’cool” of hard knocks, the school of disappointment, the Newer New York School of Poets in an era when everyone is urged to build a “brand.” Božičević plays with this idea further in “No Filter,” a scattershot-spaced poem that reads:

This poem jostles between two states, amazement or “amaze” and a catalog of suck. I love this poem. It’s shorthand for a weakened attention span. Gone are the days of trying to reach Wordsworthian or Keatsian sublimes, a simple “wow” works instead. Or maybe the “wow” is a sarcastic teenager shrugging. Whatever the “wow” is, or represents, the poem manages to capture how I feel on a near daily basis.  

Božičević came to the U.S. at age nineteen from Croatia. She’s fluent in English, and she can’t help but call herself an American poetTo become an American poet also means gaining cultural fluency, not just in books, music, and art, but things like Tumbler, #__, Starbucks, 7/11, and CVS.

JOMO lays out all of the ways in which one can be an outsider. The speaker of the poems is positioned not only as being an outsider as an artist (poets are notorious outsiders) but as a woman, a queer woman, an immigrant, a non-native speaker (let’s remember this land’s first language was not English), and someone with a mental illness.

She outs herself in a variety of ways and these ways all lead back to the beautiful dedication at the beginning:

The lost don’t just need a voice to relate to, they need a little levity sometimes, and Božičević delivers on that front.

It’s devastating to wallow, even more so when it’s done with full awareness. Božičević uses humor as a way to shake off despair the way a wet dog does lake water. It’s both a distancing device and a means for getting closer. As a poet, she’s perhaps painfully aware of the almighty “reader,” the person who could easily stop reading, shut the book, and exit the poem forever. She embraces this prospect, teases it a little, and even dares the addressee to bounce.

I don’t think the only value of poetry is whether or not you relate to it on a personal level, that’s a very narrow experience of art in general, but, for me, being able to relate to a speaker is certainly a viable entry point because I read to connect as much as I read to learn. I found a genuine appreciation for lines such as “I’ll be so mad / If love turns out not to be a person,” or “Where’s my drugs,” or a “Moth is just a loser butterfly.”

Anne Waldman called Božičević “one of our most rambunctious and charismatic poets,” a real lifesaver, someone who can in fact make you feel better.

It’s fitting that JOMO begins with a blessing and ends with dancing; the last line of the book is “And I shake my ass,” which invites several readings, one literal, the action of ass-shaking, one that means, “And I continue to live,” and one, that, if taken in isolation, could mean “I jostle my donkey,” all of these interpretations are cause for celebration.

Staff Picks: Frankenstein

Fernando recommends Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: or, the Modern Prometheus (Restless Books):

Out of the canonical monsters, could the monster in Frankenstein be the most relatable? Who doesn’t sometimes feel like an amalgam of rotting appendages that have to be animated back to life with electricity?

I confess that I’ve never actually read Frankenstein. Who has? It turns 200 this year, and I don’t know of another book written by a teenager that has had this big of a cultural impact on our collective imagination. For this reason alone I should’ve already read it!

This edition released by Restless Books is the one for me, though. It has original, gothically radiant artwork by the artist Eko, and reproduces the original text of 1818, not the later, compromised text. The book feels great in your hand and makes for a great collector’s item, or if you’re looking for something beyond a regular paperback (which I hear mostly feature the to-be-avoided 1831 edition).

This is it, everybody: the year we all read this book and meet the monster firsthand. We shall embrace the epistolary narrative and its nineteenth-century-isms. We shall remember that one day our own Mount Tambora will erupt, summer will be gone, and perhaps a new monster will appear when the sun seeps through the clouds of ash.