What an odd book this is. Marie NDiaye’s The Witch, translated by Jordan Stump, was shortlisted for this year’s International Booker Prize and despite its novella length (~130 pages), when I tried to summarize the plot to my partner it took me a solid 20 minutes. The Witch is partially a character study and partially a family drama focused on Lucie, a woman whose bloodline has the capacity for magic but whose talents are far inferior to those of her mother, her grandmother, and even her two daughters.
At the outset of the novel, we’re introduced to Lucie’s powers of divination—her ability to see into the past and into the future in a limited way, her visions accompanied by bloody tears. The novel begins with the completion of Lucie’s daughters’ training. Lucie has been training them in the basement and they’ve finally cried blood, a sure sign of their capabilities. I found the daughters to be particularly compelling figures. They’re oddly practical and detached, yet mischievous. At first, they don’t seem to make much use of their abilities, using their predictive powers merely to note that it’s raining tomorrow so they won’t be able to play basketball. As the novel progresses, they take on a more ominous quality—they transform into and out of being ravens and fly around, inspiring in their mother a certain pride but also fear of their inevitable departure, which they enact—transforming into ravens and flying away forever—when their Lucie tries to hold their hands in tandem).
In fact, a lot of the book revolves around generational disconnects and the tension between independence and collectivity. Witching serves as a kind of metaphor in that regard, being something that is passed down through generations of women. Lucie recognizes her own powers are relatively poor despite her mother’s powers being strong. Lucie’s mother tries to deny her powers, though, largely for the sake of her husband—Lucie does the same. NDiaye implies that it’s necessary for witches to be initiated into their skills before they turn thirteen, so there’s a kind of communion that must take place, but once the children are equipped with their skills, they have an alarming level of control over themselves and, potentially, others.
Indeed, the book feels disturbing precisely because of how disconnected everyone seems from one another. For example, Lucie has a neighbour, Isabelle, with a young son who is always on edge. Isabelle expresses a great deal of disdain for him and spends her time trying to get him into a private school in Paris so that she doesn’t have to deal with him. She alludes to leaving, pointing to the sky, and Lucie later sees Isabelle’s son on a school trip. Isabelle, meanwhile, has abandoned her son and husband, neither of whom seem happy—and indeed, Lucie sees the son in the future as a morose man. The book starts with a scene, too, where Lucie’s husband Pierrot brings home a guest from his timeshare-selling club (Pierrot’s job is to scam people into timeshares). It’s revealed that the man has abandoned his wife and child and that Pierrot has a strange reverence for him because he intends to, and does, do the same. Lucie’s mother is disconnected from her grandmother; Pierrot’s mother ultimately disowns her own daughter by the end of the novel, and that daughter ends a pregnancy. When Pierrot gets a new family, he keeps a smiling face while conversing with Lucie and simultaneously kicking his new partner’s children. Late in the book Lucie starts teaching and grows to resent her students, another form of generational disdain. There’s a motif throughout the book of people abandoning their families and hating children. It also seems to be that everyone remembers one another differently. Lucie continually expresses shock at how different people seem from when she last saw them and vice versa. There’s a feeling of disorientation that permeates the text.
One of the most marked disorientations is probably Pierrot’s sister. Lucie and her daughters Maud and Lise visit Pierrot’s mom and sister, the latter of which has become much more rotund and is heavily made up. It’s implied that she’s maybe selling sex, but it’s not confirmed—though she is pregnant. Maud and Lise want to have a fun night on the town with Lili and take her out. It’s implied they turn into ravens again. When they return the next morning they announce cheerily that there’s no more baby. It’s an ominous, compelling moment. It’s only in the closing pages of the book that we return to Lili. By the end, her mother has given up on her, thinking her daughter has gone insane. She keeps rambling about birds coming back to take her away or becoming a bird or some other kind of nonsense. She, too, is left with no one.
The book, for all its brevity, has a number of plot threads that are hard to summarize. If we follow the main character, the main points are that Pierrot has left her and the children behind. Lucie does not want him back, but discovers that he has taken 120, 000 francs that her father had given her. She tries to get the money back and discovers her husband’s whereabouts through divination; when she tracks him down he discovers he has a new partner, very religious, and three children. This, despite the fact that he wanted to eschew all conventions. He hated his wife, he hated his kids, he hated living in the suburbs, he hated his job, he hated conventions and patterns and he wanted out. When Lucie is unable to reclaim the money he stole (how does she think they’re living, the new woman wonders), she leaves. Meanwhile, she has a plan to ‘parent trap’ her parents. She can’t fathom how they were able to have a happy thirty years together and then part ways, now being separated for five years and with her mom having a new partner. So, she’s trying to convince her mom and dad to meet together for a cottage getaway she has arranged. Her mom insists it’s a terrible idea and warns of something very bad happening. Her dad says he’ll do it but he needs the 120, 000 francs back: turns out he was embezzling it from clients at his insurance agency and he’s sure he’ll get demoted but that he may be able to avoid arrest if he gives it back. Lucie does not tell him she doesn’t have it. The central threads are pretty compelling.
I’m left to wonder, though, about the idea of conventions and why the last act of the book gets so strange. NDiaye continually refers to the words on characters’ clothes, as if they are branded with slogans as placeholders for genuine experience. Pierrot rages against conventional bourgeois life. Maud and Lise are obsessed with TV, which Lucie aligns with premonition—she thinks perhaps her children are unimpressed with their divination powers because, thanks to television, nothing is surprising anymore. Lucie also reflects on the predictable secrets and disclosures of soap operas. We come into stories with expectations of how they can go.
The Witch does not follow such conventions.
In the last act, Lucie (re)encounters her neighbour Isabelle. It seems trite to ask who the real witch is, but Isabelle is certainly a contender. The dialogue between them feels ominous in its manipulation. Having been abandoned by her husband and her children, with her parents unlikely to reunite, Isabelle asks who still cares about Lucie and she would be hard pressed for an answer. She asks this under the guise of offering her a job at a new school she has started, funded by taxpayers: a school for Women’s Spiritual Health. To the reader, it feels like a deal with the devil, but Lucie accepts a position teaching divination to young women (Objective Knowledge of Past and Future for Self and Others). This, among other classes where teachers are continually depleted to their vampiric students, absorbing their energy. It’s another critique of bourgeois society where rich people take frivolous courses like Introduction to Therapeutic Colours, Advanced Knowledge of the Self, Progressive Discovery of the Unknown Muscle, and so on. Using her divination powers sap Lucie’s strength, and her students are perfectly content to have their pasts and futures told, so instead of actually teaching she just gives them the information they want (is this modern education with ChatGPT…?). In any case, she just gives fake information that is plausible enough.
There’s a really interesting moment in which Lucie reflects on her talents. She is teaching at a school where she sees everyone as frauds, “woo woo New Age” types. Being in that context, she doubts her own gifts: “I began to doubt that I’d ever possessed any gift other than fabrication, that the kind of power the women of my maternal family thought they enjoyed even existed” (116). She thinks about her gifts as mere superstition, and that the only thing it accomplished is that the women in her bloodline convinced themselves. She reflects that they convinced themselves so utterly “that we believed in what we thought we were seeing—of the truth of stories handed down by unhappy women, poor, downtrodden, naively cunning old women like my credulous ancestress, so passionate about divination, my mother’s mother” (116). She considers that her children did not turn into birds but instead hitchhiked or were arrested. She sees herself as “nothing more than a pathetic woman of a perfectly ordinary kind, abandoned, a fraud, like my fellow teachers, their faces worn down by drab torment, by mediocre calamity” (116). If we return to the idea of an individual against a collective, we see that she tries to pride herself on her unique talents but loses that sense of self by being among a community of people she cannot respect. She is absorbed into the same fraudulent existence as her counterparts, a parallel to her husband’s experience as a bourgeois salesman.
Here’s where the ending really takes an ironic turn that subverts our bourgeois expectations. The police show up and Isabelle placates them with respect to her educational institution, but sics them on Lucie. The students have accused her of—get this—not witchcraft. They accuse her of making things up and she is charged for being a charlatan and a fraud and taken to prison. It’s a great, darkly comic twist that where women have continually been tried for being witches, here we are with a witch being tried for not being a witch. All the same, the police won’t touch her, fearing that she is a witch, while charging her for not being one. The scene escalates, but I won’t spoil that part.
I will, however, spoil the culmination of her parents’ reunion. Skip this paragraph if you want to retain a sense of surprise. A common thread in International Booker Prize shortlisters this year is the idea of guilt and complicity. When Lucie tries to reunite her parents, her mom ultimately explains why their reunion is impossible and the explanation is fraught with emotional complexity. She explains as follows:
“She and my father had been married for twenty-five years without I-knew-what (her power, her gift) ever coming between them, both because my father was deeply skeptical and because she herself made very sure not to show any sign of it. She only worked marvels in secret. She did work them, yes, she couldn’t help herself, because she was enormously talented. But one evening, without in any way meaning to, my father caught her. Coming home earlier than usual, he spotted the tip of a serpent’s tail. She never doubted that she could easily make him forget that, so deep was his disbelief, and in any case he didn’t say anything, he didn’t shout, didn’t protest. He didn’t react at all. In truth, she had nothing to reproach him for. It was her, my mother, who, knowing that he’d seen what he wasn’t supposed to, felt her affection mutate as the days went by into a frenzied longing to destroy him. He had to be punished for letting himself see what he should have closed his eyes to, even if it wasn’t his fault. She would have done him some irreparable harm. She felt a need taking root in her, the need to punish him, crush him, destroy him, and there was no hope of quelling it. She didn’t hate him, no, but the enigmatic, powerful part of her that revealed itself only in solitude and darkness, that cold, imperious, violent part of her was at war with her usual goodwill toward my father. She would soon have used her genius to demolish him in some vile way. Realizing that, she left, she fled.” (87)
Like other International Booker Prize nominees, She Who Remains by Rene Karabash, On Earth As It Is Beneath by Ana Paula Maia, and The Director by Daniel Kehlmann, there’s this question of what makes someone guilty. There’s an ambiguity of who is at fault: the perpetrator or the witness, and the way in which the dynamic between them forever changes on the moment of recognition. There’s a complex ethics here that recalls Disgrace by J. M. Coetzee. The fact that she can’t forgive him for having seen her, for being recognized, is such a challenging and complex feeling to explore.
(Spoilers continue here). The way the storyline of the parents’ reunion plays out is such an odd and haunting one. Lucie’s mom’s new boyfriend comes to her to deliver a message. Her mom feigns being busy so as not to be seen. The message comes with a gift: a small can with a snail in it eating grass. That snail is her father. They went through with their reunion, but as promised Lucie’s mom has done something bad in transforming her ex into a snail, presumably forevermore. Lucie, meanwhile, hears from his insurance company that they are indeed pressing charges and he’ll be under arrest if he comes back. Then, when Lucie is arrested, she has her possessions taken away. When she’s released, her possessions are gone; she assumes her snaildad was tossed away and crushed under foot. A dark end for someone who tried so hard not to recognize magic.
The ending of the novel is imbued with irony and sadness. Everyone feels disconnected. Everyone feels isolated. Even Pierrot, now expanding his new family with a new child, does not seem too thrilled about his new life, reverting to his dark visage once more.
NDiaye’s style is replete with complex sentences. Some of the clauses take readers on a full journey before revealing the central point. At the same time, the style feels direct and accessible. There’s a simplicity to the language, but a complexity to the expression. The sentences read like the magic visions of its central character: in some ways they are illuminating and vivid, in other ways sparse and oblique.
Despite the digital ink I’ve spilled on this review, The Witch perplexes me. I still don’t know how to feel about its strange tone and its unsettling dynamics. The characters feel cruel, cold, and distant, but I still feel for them—even and especially when they literally cease being human. The Witch is an uncomfortable read, and it’s difficult to navigate how our individualism puts us at odds across generations and how we abandon one another through our own pursuits. I’m sure there is much more to discuss here, but my augury is limited and I won’t be able to speak to all of the author’s intentions.
With that said, happy reading!
No comments:
Post a Comment