The facts are these: Ursula Todd is born on a cold, snowy
night in 1910. She lives until she dies
and then she is born again on a cold, snowy night in 1910. She dies at age five from drowning. She dies at age eight from the Spanish
Influenza. She dies at age 30 during the
London Blitz. As she lives again and
again, the question remains – can Ursula have any effect on her future?
At some points, it seems her other lives are leaving a sort
of imprint on her current life. Physicist R. Lutece describes this phenomenon in
Barriers to Trans-Dimensional Travel (1889). “The mind of the subject will
desperately struggle to create memories when none exist.” Although what is happening to Ursula cannot
truthfully be described as time-traveling, I believe the sentiment still applies. For Ursula, avoiding a death from an alternative
life manifests itself as a gnawing in the pit of her stomach or a double take
at a passing stranger. She can sense
something is wrong, but cannot fully grasp why.
It is because those deaths she suffered are not “past” lives. They are not her deaths. They are wholly “other.” She is attempting to grapple with memories
that are not actually there. Within the
novel, Ursula’s therapist compares it to a palimpsest; that is, a manuscript
page from which the text has been scraped off.
And, although it can be used again, the former lettering can still be
faintly seen beneath the new.
This idea of “many-worlds” is the aspect of the novel I
enjoyed the most. As Ursula lived and
died, the reader has the opportunity to examine variables and constants across
the different timelines. Ursula
unconsciously makes decisions that affect the entire outcome of her life. A stolen kiss on her 16th birthday
leads to a lifetime of shame and abuse. Rebuffing those advances means the girl next door avoids being
murdered. Like a Victorian thaumatrope,
you are led to believe you are seeing the constant image of a bird in a cage, when in fact; it’s merely an
optical illusion – a variable. Ursula’s
marriage to an abusive man is not a fixed point in her life; the murder doesn’t
have to happen. It’s the separate images
of a bird and a cage that are constant. The kiss is a recurring moment (i.e. a fixed
point) of her life. How she handles it
changes the course of her lives and the lives of those around her.
It’s an incredibly ambitious novel and it can be challenging
to keep up with all of Ursula’s lives.
Overall, I did like Life After
Life. There are a few lengthy
sections filled with expert detail. Atkinson had no problem capturing war ravaged London. Mostly, I appreciated that the novel offered
me a lot to think about in terms of life (obviously) and the inherent structure
of novels. I see this book as a
mosaic. It’s made up of similar, yet mismatching
pieces that come together to make one complete image (the novel). However, even though that image is complete,
it’s not exact. If you look too closely,
the complete image disappears and you start to see the novel for what it actually
is – fragments of multiple wholes. In an interview, Atkinson said this
about Ursula’s repeating lives, “there is no end to the novel in my mind. There
is an infinite number of ‘Snow’ chapters and attempts on her part.” Bird or cage, in the end, it doesn’t really
matter.
Although there really is no other book like this, here are a few that deal with similar topics:
For another novel set in World War II with a sense of displacement in time, try Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut.
If you really want a narrative challenge, check out To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf.
For a contemporary war novel, try Billy Lynn's Long Half-Time Walk by Ben Fountain.
~Meredith T.
Although there really is no other book like this, here are a few that deal with similar topics:
For another novel set in World War II with a sense of displacement in time, try Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut.
If you really want a narrative challenge, check out To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf.
For a contemporary war novel, try Billy Lynn's Long Half-Time Walk by Ben Fountain.
~Meredith T.
Wow...and an incredibly ambitious review here as well. You've condensed what appears to be an exceedingly complex plot and structure into an understandable description. Spot on re Kurt Vonnegut also. Question, who is the "He" in the title of this review and what does it mean that he doesn't row?
ReplyDelete“He doesn’t row” refers to another work that shares similar themes with Life After Life. The character in question (he) sits in a rowboat with two others. When one comments that the man isn’t rowing, the other replies, “No, he doesn’t row.” “He doesn’t row?” the first questions. (which is to say, he won’t row). The other quickly clarifies with “No, he DOESN’T row.” In fact, these three characters have lived this situation hundreds of times (operating under the multiverse theory). In every instance, no matter how varied the timeline is, at this point the man doesn’t row. It is a constant. He DOESN’T row, meaning, he never rows.
Delete