swan flying

It’s always scary to read a book written by a close friend. I mean, there is the possibility that I might cringe, that I might not like it, and then what would I say? For other, not so close friends who write, I have observed that the simplest solution seems to be not to to read the possible disaster (as many writers have treated my work). That’s one reason for not reading such a book, that, or that a feeling of obligation wipes out the possible pleasure of reading it. It’s sort of like being forced to taste food: “Eat this, you’ll like it.” What if you don’t?

Theatre people have the same problem. What if they don’t like the play or the actor’s performance? The best line I ever heard was suggested to me by a very successful actor who had to see and comment on his fellow actors’ work, even when he didn’t like it. He would go backstage and say with great enthusiasm, “I wish you could have been in the audience tonight!” You have to be a good actor to bring that off.

All this by way of preamble to my reaction to "Swan Flying, a novel” by my friend Marianne Brandis, with, not to forget, beautiful wood engravings by her brother, Gerard Brender à Brandis. It’s not only an achievement, a labour of love, but it’s also a good read, even if you don’t know the author (or maybe because?). I’ll deal with the tangible product first.

Marianne produced the book herself, and I am in awe of that. Right now I’m in the throes of (valley of?) decision about what to do with my memoir, Endings, a book about ageing that publishers are telling me will not appeal to young readers. (I don’ t want young readers; no one under 50 should read it.) In earlier works Marianne has developed a skill and now an art. beginning with the creation of a collection of what she calls “chapbooks”, plus other work undertaken with her brother as co-artist. But this book, a full-length novel (338 pages), incorporates more in a production where she has the control I have never imagined possible. She has used different fonts to tell her story, different types (narrative, computer, typewriter) and different cursive scripts indicating different writers/characters. The effect achieves what she fails to achieve (my one cavil) with her character’s speech patterns. As a playwright I am very careful to differentiate my characters by their language and their ways of expressing themselves. I have been told that a reader of a script of mine can tell the characters apart by the way they speak, a technique perhaps not so necessary since actors will do that job for one, but they are helped by it. I have caught similar expressions of hers (e.g.“a bit”) attributed to disparate people, and few that distinguish them. A small cavil.

But the content! I don’t want to give away too much, so I will simply quote “a bit” from the back cover:

“Life can change in an instant, as Marta de Witt - recently retired history professor - realised when a phone call summons her from Toronto to the bedside of her dying aunt Hilda in Stratford. …The book is set in Stratford, Ontario, and that theatre town is more than just the backdrop to this multifaceted novel.”

The setting, of course, is familiar to me. I lived in Stratford for a time, when my husband was the manager of the Festival, and I have been a guest in Marianne’s home on Water Street, where Marta de Witt lives. But familiarity stops where creativity begins. Not to spoil anything by saying too much, I just want to say that I was drawn in and moved by the story, the characters and their relationships.

And that’s all I want to say about that.

a myriad of random thoughts

With so much going on, I had a lot of disparate thoughts I have to deal with as quickly as possible.

Uppermost was my granddaughter’s wedding. I must admit I had a pang when I saw her (so beautiful!) walking down the aisle on her father’s arm (my son John). I had a father’s arm but my two daughters did not and it still hurts. Not to dwell on it but I just wanted to acknowledge another milestone. Bereavement is forever.

It was a young wedding and delightful. I had a large wedding (over 400 guests) and like weddings in those days, paid for by the father of the bride, most of the guests were friends of the parents. Mine was distinctive because there was a generous complement of younger people, friends of the bride and groom. Well, I was 21; my granddaughter is 31. So more young people than old attended her party. These friends were young but mature, established career people, so bright and shiny, altogether delightful. The speeches were wonderful (especially my son’s, but allow for my bias). And the planning and execution of the arrangements were impeccable. Example; the large wedding party: 8 groomsmen, two of them brothers and one brother-in-law of the groom; six bridesmaids, one sister-in-law and five very close friends of the bride, including two doctors like herself, derived from her longer background - all these lovely people were transported in a van to the reception, with a private champagne celebration for them. Good planning,very classy.

As I said, I was 21; I married 17 days after I convocated with a Masters degree in English.I had no idea what I was doing. I went from my parents’ home to my/our married home. I think of that line from The Lady’s Not for Burning ( a 1948 play by Christopher Fry, 1907-2005), when Margaret, the mother, comments on Alizon, the woman intended for one of her sons, runs off with Richard, the servant. She worries about them “throwing themselves under the wheels of happiness.” That’s what i did. Other, later wheels were harder.

So I was awash with memory and emotion. Enough of that, myriad, but not random enough..

It has been a busy fall, with trips and visits and laundry and lots of paper-pushing. I was very tired but I think I’m recovering. Maybe not; I have more thoughts but no energy to convey them right now.

Anon,anon.