The Time of the Ghost, by Diana Wynne Jones

[rachelmanija]

Fenella never explained anything properly. She had once told Sally she didn’t know how. She peeled a slice of corned beef off a cold fried egg and did her best. “She thought Sally was a ghost and threw custard all over the floor.”

It seems bizarrely fitting that one of Jones’ weirdest novels is also, from what I gather, one of her most autobiographical.

Let’s see how far I can get into a review without book-destroying spoilers. This will be difficult. If you haven’t read this book yet but would like to, I suggest that you not click on the cut, and not read the back or, in some cases, front cover of the edition you obtain.

The book begins as if mid-way through a nightmare. There’s been an accident, the narrator thinks, and that thought sends her tumbling into mindless panic. She can’t remember who or where she is. She’s invisible and can walk through walls. Her mind has been affected by her weird bodiless state, leaving her unable to concentrate or perform complex tasks, and if she thinks too hard about what might be going on, she metaphorically and literally falls apart.

The obvious answer is that she’s a ghost who doesn’t remember the accident that killed her. I don’t think it’s spoilery to say that it’s much more complicated and interesting than that.

She explores, hoping to figure out where and who she is, and meets three brilliant, funny, and extremely neglected sisters. Their parents work at a school, and keep the girls in a freezing room, the better to ignore their existence. Though the parents earn a reasonably good living, they don’t bother to feed, clothe, provide for, or even notice their daughters, letting them beg the cafeteria ladies for food. Nor do they notice when one sister ties knots into her hair, or another disappears for days. This is the part that’s apparently largely autobiographical.

I love the sisters to bits: enormous Cart, who storms through the house every morning in a state of either low blood sugar or sheer animal rage, dramatic Imogen, who nearly gets herself accidentally hanged to demonstrate the glories of flying on stage, weird Fenella, a small spooky child who ties knots in her hair, and the mysterious Sally, aka Semolina.

The book isn’t a depressing read – it’s very funny, and is also primarily a mystery and a thriller – but it’s also a very good illustration of how child neglect is a form of child abuse. The parents never, ever learn better, either. And that’s about all I can say without getting into deeply spoilery matters. This ranks with Hexwood as not only one of Jones’ strangest books, but one of her hardest-to-discuss-outside-a-cut books.

The Time of the Ghost



I had remembered the confusion over which sister the ghost was, but not which one she actually was. I can’t think of any other book in which the narrator’s own identity is so thoroughly obscured for so long.

One thing which struck me while reading is the parallels between the villains. The ostensible villain, the Monigan, is a greedy goddess who will take and take and take, giving back nothing, and who breaks the rules so basic that they don’t even need to be stated: a bargain requires reciprocality. A promise must be adhered to by the letter. Everyone is completely outraged and alarmed when the Monigan fails to give anything in return for the valuables she’s given, when she seems to take a life early, and when she lets everyone madly jump through hoops trying to save Sally when, perhaps, she’d set her sights on Julian all along.

And then there’s the awful, awful parents. Who also break a contract so basic that no one ever states it directly: you’re supposed to feed and clothe and care for and notice your children! Whatever they get from being parents, they’re giving very, very little back, and never even realize that there’s anything wrong with that.

Julian, the most comprehensible of the villains, seems to be a simple sociopath. But though he’s the one who’s overtly violent, he’s no worse than the others. They all share a total failure of empathy, fairness, and obligation. But it’s more forgivable coming from an ancient, inhuman goddess.

Comments

[kore]

I love this book, so much. I had to review it once without trying to give away the plot, which was brain-breaking!

[coffeeandink]

I always remember who the narrator is, but when I reread I frequently doubt it anyway. Jones is so ruthless on self-romanticism.

[ursula]

I find it interesting that the handful of reviews I've seen of this book focused on the parents, because when I read it the sibling relationships seemed so perfectly tuned with my own memories that the parents faded into the background. (The exception is the bit about the mother planning careers.)

[nestra]

Huh, I literally just read this two days ago.

And that seems to be all I have to say.

[rachelmanija]

What did you think of it?

[nestra]

I liked it. I think I missed out on the formative years for Diana Wynne Jones, maybe? I find that I like her stuff generally, but it doesn't get into my heart.

It's interesting that you compare it to Hexwood, because I found Hexwood much more confusing than this.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

What are the parents' putative motivations in this? Or are they simply Roald Dahlian Bad Grownups? I mean, there are all kinds of situations in which parents are neglectful, but usually you can point to the reasons why. What are the reasons here?

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

It doesn't explain the parents' motivations. They're not exaggerated caricatures, they're very realistic portrayals of parents who just don't care. I found them extremely believable - actually, more so because there was no pat explanation.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

Well, I wasn't expecting it necessarily to be a pat explanation.

You have experience with all this, and I do not.... if you feel inclined, and if there's a way to do it that wouldn't take too much of your time, I really, really am interested in your thoughts on why a person who doesn't have some kind of a deficit (mental/physical/emotional/financial, etc.) keeps having kids and then neglecting them hideously. Mild neglect I get. It's the hideous neglect that I don't.

I know this is way off topic. It just struck me, in this case. Often when a story has an abusive parent, the parent has a mental illness, or is an alcoholic/drug addict, etc. Or, has more complicated emotional issues (thinking of your memoir).

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

Well, if you recall, I never did come up with a satisfying explanation for why my Dad let people abuse me - which I would classify as hideous! He knew I was being abused on a daily basis, and he did nothing. Not okay, and not minor.

He's very intelligent. Money was not the issue. He has no disability or mental illness. He just didn't care enough. He had other priorities that were more important to him than my well-being. Plus, he told himself that it wasn't that bad, it was for my own good, some day I'd appreciate it, etc.

Awful as it is, that sort of situation - parent or parents who don't have a mental illness, but neglect, fail to protect, and/or emotionally abuse their kids, all the while making excuses to themselves - is actually fairly common. I think that was basically the case with Diana Wynne Jones' actual parents as well. You don't have to be a sociopath, you just have to be less empathetic and more selfish than is the norm.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

So depressing. So depressing, and hard to combat. How do you get people to care more?

Thanks, though, I appreciate your thoughts ....

... I'm selfish, but also empathetic. I think that's what's kept me from being neglectful.

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

The problem is that people who don't care, don't care that they don't care.

Maybe as a culture, the solution is to really push, "It's okay to not have kids! In fact, don't have kids unless you really, really want them!"

I'm selfish but empathetic too. I think you really only need one of those qualities (unselfishness, empathy), not both.

[tool-of-satan.livejournal.com]

Maybe as a culture, the solution is to really push, "It's okay to not have kids! In fact, don't have kids unless you really, really want them!"

I think that would help. A lot of people seem to have kids just because it's, y'know, what people do (i.e., general societal expectations) or because of specific expectations of people they care about (e.g., spouses). Or because they internalize these expectations. And it is only natural that when you undertake a project you're not really committed to, you don't do a great job. Which is fine if it's a garden or something but not so much if it's a child.

[kitryan.livejournal.com]

(I just read this book too) I think that the huge pressure to get married and have kids, whether you want to or not (or without even being able to examine whether you want to or not) coupled with the pernicious assumption that, no matter what, once you have a child you will become capable of loving and raising a child, when that just isn't true, can lead to this kind of situation. Even other animals, operating more on instinct often make a complete hash of raising their kids, especially if they're young or isolated from their support structure.

[miz-hatbox.livejournal.com]

(edited for clarity's sake.... I hope!)

"In fact, don't have kids unless you really, really want them!"

I agree, but I'm not sure that that is the answer here. I believe a person can want to be a parent/movie actor/President of the United States badly enough to land the job, and yet screw it up by avoiding the responsibilities that the situation entails.

I think the issue is follow-through. You can be completely unempathetic and still have follow-through. You can hate your spouse, kids, and the life you wound up in, and yet make sure that there is food on the table and clothes on people's backs and appropriate supervision when necessary, just like at any other job.

As for selfishness...we are all either selfish or else kidding ourselves. I'd even say a little selfishness is a good thing, because it's necessary in order to stand up for oneself. But it's a separate issue, and furthermore it's a red herring because I can use that word to describe any choice with which I disagree. And since "society" is not homogenous, some group will curse you for whatever choice you make, which means that you're damned no matter what you do.

For instance: Having kids and raising the next generation: Selfless if you agree with my choice. But selfish, if you believe that we should strive for zero population growth and that kids use up too many resources, with their diapers and their plastic toys and outgrowing clothes every six months, yet insisting on buying the latest fashion at the mall. And whatever choice I make, if I do it so that some group pats me on the head and says, "good girl," is that selfish because it's for approval?

And I think my point before I edited this was that if you try and make it a balancing act in the hopes of satisfying the ideals/responsibilities that all sides request, you will please nobody and be damned by everyone.

But follow-through,aka satisfying the responsibilities you already have, is the way to do the right thing. In my opinion.

[smillaraaq.livejournal.com]

What I also found amazingly believable and familiar was how all of the sisters just sort of shrugged and accepted the rotten parenting as something unremarkable, because of course it's all they've ever known...

[spectralbovine.livejournal.com]

You didn't mention this book when you were recommending Diana Wynne Jones books to me, I don't think. Sounds interesting!

[skygiants]

This book is so weird and I love it SO MUCH; there's so much twisty and enormously creepy echoing going on in there between all the supernatural stuff and the much more frightening reality of their lives. I was thinking about the obscured narrator/identity confusion, and how much it works here when in any other book it would feel contrived - their parents sort of dismiss the sisters as such a conglomerate, their father unable to remember which is which and their mother making hugely arbitrary distinctions, that even though their personalities are perfectly clear to the reader it makes total sense that they would be in confusion.

[tool-of-satan.livejournal.com]

This is indeed a weird book. I definitely need to read it again, as I can't remember the narrator revelation either.