Wednesday, April 7, 2010

The King Must Die, by Mary Renault

I've tried to read this book before. It was on the recommendation of my art history teacher, Mrs. McKellan. She was about four-foot-ten, wore her car keys around her neck on a lanyard, and when an especially titillating slide of some Corinthian pottery shard clicked onto the projector screen (I have never seen a teacher use a slide projector before or since, but it befitted her sense of old-fashioned propriety in the subject, I think), she'd grab her keys and whirl them through the air like a propeller.

She didn't believe in prudishness of any kind, which might explain why she was recommending a book like The King Must Die to a bunch of sixteen-year-olds. She refused to click past such slides as the Venus de Milo or Michaelangelo's David until she was absolutely sure she'd lectured us sufficiently on the sculptors' extraordinary technique and expertise on the human figure, when all we were doing was writing crude notes to each other and giggling behind our hands. She put just a little too much stock in our maturity, but we appreciated the pretense. I loved the class and hero-worshiped Mrs. McKellan, so when she froze the projector on a statue of the Laoccoon being dragged to Hades by serpents and began pontificating on Mary Renault's writing prowess, I ran straight to the library and began reading The King Must Die that very night.

This is what I got from that first (failed) attempt: Theseus is six years old; he witnesses a gross sacrifice; he gets older; he finds out that his father isn't really Poseidon; lots of people have sex; he goes on a journey and ends up in a city ruled by women; he becomes the queen's beeyotch. Around here I stopped reading, wondering what I was missing.

What I was missing then was an appreciation for the fact that the Greece from whence we got Aristotle, Homer, and an overabundance of nude statues was once, time out of mind, a real place. The King Must Die takes the mythical hero of Theseus and recasts him as a historical figure, which he may or may not have been. The myths surrounding him are largely distasteful, as Greek myths generally are; filled with much abandoning of various women and cursing of various family members and various semi-incestuous shenanigans of various gods, and so on. Renault pays close attention to these stories, but takes Theseus by the ankles and shakes him until most of this foolishness falls out of his pockets; then sets him back down in a carefully researched and beautifully rendered Greece, circa 2000 BC. The gods are very much a part of the lives of these people, but they are not really characters. Theseus himself is convinced throughout his childhood that Poseidon is his father; even when he is told otherwise he continues to pray to Poseidon, receiving answers in the form of crashing waves, earthquakes, rushing currents, and the like. In fact, all the supernatural phenomena which any of the books' characters ascribe to this god or that god are presented subjectively, with the reader free to think otherwise. Likewise, Renault retools myth-Theseus's miraculous feats of strength and derring-do into the plausible adventures of a headstrong and precocious teenager. He attributes his successes to Poseidon or Apollo or even the super-creepy Earth Mother Dia, but the reader is free to think that maybe he's just a clever kid.

The point is that the source of all these myths was always reality, no matter how removed or buried by weirdness. Renault's talent lies in peeling back her mythical source material until she uncovers the real place and time and culture at the bottom. This does not make for a quick read. The very nature of the book demands continual exposition; the first third of the novel, taken up with Theseus's young childhood and teenage years, is for this reason something of a chore. Not until his encounter with the matriarchal society of Eleusis does the plot--such as it is--begin to pick up. The Eleusians practice an arcane form of sacrifice to the Earth Mother; each year, the town welcomes a male stranger and coerces him into fighting their king to the death, whereupon the stranger is made their new king--until the next year, when he is bumped off in a similar fashion. Theseus, despite his attraction to the bodacious Queen and the easy life he has as her consort, does not believe his moira ends in Eleusis, and must apply all his wits to find a way out of his situation. Moira, a concept similar to fate, is a recurring theme throughout. His moira is what allows him to give Eleusis the honorable slip and establish himself as the heir to the king of Athens; his moira likewise takes him from there to Crete.

And here is where the book really takes off. Myth and reality meet in the labyrinthine Cretan palace, where King Minos is rarely seen but his heir, the boorish and twisted Minotaurus (sound familiar?) makes himself far too well known; where the ancient human sacrifice made to Poseidon and Mother Dia has devolved into a bloodthirsty spectator sport. The mighty Cretan empire exacts its taxes from the lands under its dominion in the form of slightly built boys and girls, whom they train in the art of the Bull Dance. Once trained, teams of these children are sent into the ring, where they tease the bull until one of them is gored or until time runs out, whichever comes first. Into this arena comes Theseus; he does not leave until it is unalterably changed. It is his moira, after all.

As a historical study, and, to a certain extent, as a story, The King Must Die is excellent. As far as evoking a specific atmosphere and immersing the reader in the setting itself, the only thing I can think of to rival it is Rumer Godden's In This House of Brede. But The King Must Die isn't meaningful. We are meant to root for Theseus, but there is no heart. Why should we root for him? What's his motive--his pride? His moira? The gods? And why should we care? It's never quite made clear, and in the midst of all Renault's assuredly fine writing is a certain sense of emptiness. Still, I can finally see where Mrs. McKellan was coming from, twirling her car keys enthusiastically at the glowing projector screen. She just wanted us to recognize the wild and beautiful Greece that was the cradle of Western civilization. So does Renault.

Friday, March 12, 2010

Sherlock Holmes

There seem to be two irreconcilable opinions about Guy Ritchie's frenetic adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's famous stories: a) he's shamelessly exploiting the genius sleuth by making him into an action star, sacrificing the intentions of the author on the indiscriminate altar of pop culture; or b) he's renewed interest in a set of rather brilliant stories, too long regarded as a relic of stodgy old Victorian England, and should be praised for it.

My opinion, however, is that people who go to see Sherlock Holmes because it is a fantastic action move, or because it is a fantastic period piece, will not be disappointed. In fact, they will probably love it. But if it induces them to delve into the stories, they will be very disappointed. In Doyle's works, Holmes disappears for long stretches of time, leaving his faithful chronicler Dr. Watson back at 221B Baker Street to speculate as the what his genius friend could be up to. Most of the action scenes consist in Holmes sniffing out mundane pieces of evidence while Watson looks on; every once in a blue moon they feel compelled to bring along their revovlers and occasionally even find the need to discharge them. But the stories' strength lie in their clever mental shenanigans, not in any particular excitement of story-telling.

If, on the other hand, you go to the movie expecting your standard austere-genius-smokes-pipe-and-solves-crimes Holmes movie of the Basil Rathbone variety, you will also be disappointed. It's not hard to see why die-hard Conan Doyle fans feel betrayed, really; Robert Downey Jr.'s portrayal of the great detective is far from the impeccable, self-possessed, utterly respectable version of him that one may have come to expect from the stories; nor is Watson the semi-idiotic sidekick there mostly because Holmes needs adulation from the peanut gallery. Holmes is frenetic, socially awkward, wild-eyed, and scruffy. Watson (played by Jude Law) is a trim, sharp, ex-military man with a flair for biting sarcasm. They're friends and equals, and when they get together they can really kick some ass. Literally.

But people who fall into group A (and I've been a Conan Doyle fan since the sixth grade, so I almost counted myself among them) forget that in one story, Watson found Holmes in an opium den, filthy beyond recognition and pretending to be stoned. They forget all the asides both men make regarding Holmes's not inconsiderable mastery of disguises and his myriad talents, including boxing, shooting, and "malingering" (pretending to be sick.) He's arrogant and almost certainly mildly autistic, and just because Doyle is offhand about all this doesn't mean we can't imagine the consequences. What Ritchie has done, essentially, is read between the lines--wildly, yes, but not insupportably. In a few especially brilliant scenes, time slows as Holmes sizes up an opponent, mentally preparing a physical attack with mathematical precision. Suddenly we are catapulted back into real time as he carries out his plan of action. This is one-hundred-percent Conan Doyle Holmes, and while Ritchie certainly takes his fair share of liberties with the canon (most notably the subplot with Irene Adler, presented here as an unattainable romantic interest for Holmes) the spirit of the stories and its characters is always there.

The plot here is basically unimportant. It involves some high-up muckety-mucks and a lot of bona fide weirdness. Not to give it away or anything, but Holmes solves everything in the end. The crux of the movie lies instead in the relationship between Holmes and Watson, who is about to move out the their shared falt and into matrimony with a beautiful governess named Mary (who, incidentally, appears in some of the stories, though to a different extent). Displeased that he's losing his extraordinarily tolerant roommate/partner/friend, Holmes doesn't try to disguise his attempts to keep him around. What he misjudges in the end, however, is Mary herself, who (as in the stories) has no intention of keeping her husband away from the adventures he loves. It's wide open for a sequel. I hope the next one has a score just as good.