Nate D's Reviews > Ice
Ice
by Anna Kavan
by Anna Kavan
Nate D's review
bookshelves: britain, read-in-2010, surrealism, favorites, ice-and-snow, postwar-re-de-constructions
Sep 08, 10
bookshelves: britain, read-in-2010, surrealism, favorites, ice-and-snow, postwar-re-de-constructions
Recommended to Nate D by:
Patrick M
Recommended for:
halucinating agents lost in tundra
Read from September 03 to 07, 2010
As soon as I started to hear about this book, I knew I had to read it: apocalyptic surrealist pseudo-sci-fi wherein a man seeks a women in a world gradually being engulfed by snow and ice. For whatever reason all-consuming ice has been very prominent in my personal symbology for well over a decade now (only recently noticed this trend, currently wondering how this happened). And it gets (justified) style/tone comparisons to Robbe-Grillet. And so it comes as very little surprise that I was totally caught up by this one.
This is an incredibly strange book. It only rarely plays out anything like the adventure-story-at-the-end-of-the-world that this synopsis might suggest in a normal story, instead opting for eerie poetic atmosphere, evocations of ruins and tundra, gliding shifts in perspective and setting, and perhaps a kind of very mysterious psychodrama. In one of the most Robbe-Grillet-like touches, the protagonist has begun to hallucinate violence towards the object of his search, and these scenes are continuously intercut with the action to tint everything with feverish nightmare colors. And I have inklings that this thread, along with the general feeling of unreality that permeates the "real" action, and a key transition in the middle -- I can't shake the sensation that these elements suggest some really strange things going on with the narrative of this book. To the point that I have to wonder whether David Lynch had this in mind when he started composing the heavily subjective storytelling of Lost Highway and subsequent work. Don't worry though: ambiguous as this may be, in no way does the storytelling trail off and abandon the reader as later Lynch can seem to. The final sequences, on the contrary, were rendingly beautiful.
I'm totally fascinated by Anna Kavan now, this visionary English junkie who adopted the guise of one of her own characters as pen name and wrote so intriguing a puzzle as this. Her female lead often seems a flat male-generated fantasy of victimization and vulnerability, but she fiercely rejects this role as often as she is oddly complicit in it. In fact, it seems like this could be interpreted in part as a study of the Male Gaze (still around of course, but certainly even more blatant in the contemporary sci-fi of the 60s). Not that female writers are immune to writing from the male gaze, but Kavan's approach to this book suggests that she knew exactly what she was doing here. And it's totally amazing and fascinating. Damn, there's just so much going on in this slim book that I want to keep mulling over.
But maybe I should just give Kavan's visions themselves center stage:
Note, may 2012: Incidentally, I've had a lot of theories on the narrative of this book that I didn't want to set down because they seemed to be mine alone and I didn't want to push people towards any one reading. But now, the part of Emilie's review under the spoiler tags seems to be pretty well in agreement with my reading, so go look at that, though only after you've formed your own ideas. This is totally the missing link between Ambrose Bierce and David Lynch, as far as subjective narrative goes.
...
By the way, the excellent cover image for the 1985 Norton hardcover above is scanned from my own ex-library copy. The novel really seems to inspire some incredible images in general, actually:
This is an incredibly strange book. It only rarely plays out anything like the adventure-story-at-the-end-of-the-world that this synopsis might suggest in a normal story, instead opting for eerie poetic atmosphere, evocations of ruins and tundra, gliding shifts in perspective and setting, and perhaps a kind of very mysterious psychodrama. In one of the most Robbe-Grillet-like touches, the protagonist has begun to hallucinate violence towards the object of his search, and these scenes are continuously intercut with the action to tint everything with feverish nightmare colors. And I have inklings that this thread, along with the general feeling of unreality that permeates the "real" action, and a key transition in the middle -- I can't shake the sensation that these elements suggest some really strange things going on with the narrative of this book. To the point that I have to wonder whether David Lynch had this in mind when he started composing the heavily subjective storytelling of Lost Highway and subsequent work. Don't worry though: ambiguous as this may be, in no way does the storytelling trail off and abandon the reader as later Lynch can seem to. The final sequences, on the contrary, were rendingly beautiful.
I'm totally fascinated by Anna Kavan now, this visionary English junkie who adopted the guise of one of her own characters as pen name and wrote so intriguing a puzzle as this. Her female lead often seems a flat male-generated fantasy of victimization and vulnerability, but she fiercely rejects this role as often as she is oddly complicit in it. In fact, it seems like this could be interpreted in part as a study of the Male Gaze (still around of course, but certainly even more blatant in the contemporary sci-fi of the 60s). Not that female writers are immune to writing from the male gaze, but Kavan's approach to this book suggests that she knew exactly what she was doing here. And it's totally amazing and fascinating. Damn, there's just so much going on in this slim book that I want to keep mulling over.
But maybe I should just give Kavan's visions themselves center stage:
A mirage-like arctic splendor towered all around, a weird unearthly architecture of ice. Huge ice-battlements, rainbow turrets and pinnacles filled the sky, lit from within by frigid mineral fires. We were trapped by those encircling walls, a ring of ghostly executioners, advancing slowly, inexorably, to destroy us. I could not move, I could not think. The executioner's breath paralyzed, dulled the brain. I felt the fatal chill of the ice touch me, heard its thunder, saw it split by dazzling emerald fissures. Far overhead the iceberg-glittering heights boomed and shuddered, about to fall. Frost glimmered on her shoulders, her face was ice-white, the long eyelashes swept her cheek. I held her close, clasped her tightly against my chest, so that she would not see the mountainous masses of falling ice.
Note, may 2012: Incidentally, I've had a lot of theories on the narrative of this book that I didn't want to set down because they seemed to be mine alone and I didn't want to push people towards any one reading. But now, the part of Emilie's review under the spoiler tags seems to be pretty well in agreement with my reading, so go look at that, though only after you've formed your own ideas. This is totally the missing link between Ambrose Bierce and David Lynch, as far as subjective narrative goes.
...
By the way, the excellent cover image for the 1985 Norton hardcover above is scanned from my own ex-library copy. The novel really seems to inspire some incredible images in general, actually:
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Ice.
sign in »
Comments (showing 1-23 of 23) (23 new)
date
newest »
newest »
Scan it! I like collecting these lost editions. How did you come across this book, by the way? It's a treasure. Really I should give it 5 stars, but I want to let it sink in first, and read some more by Kavan. Have you read any of her other books?
I just happened across the copy I have at a booksale and read it because it looked interesting. For a while I kept checking other stuff by her out of the library but never got around to reading any of it. Let me know if any of it's as good as this.I'll have to scan the cover sometime soon when I get the chance. The copy also has an introduction by Brian Aldis.
You know what they say about Ice Queens, they leave a biiig wet spot!http://photo.goodreads.com/photos/128...
Oh well done. That is a hysterically pulpy cover for the book, but pretty fantastic in its own right.
i love the cover on your copy! i think lynch plays with something similiar in Mulholland Drive, too (though in a more straightforward way than in Lost Highway).
Yeah, and Inland Empire as well. I think this could really be the template for all of his deeply subjective later films.
yeah, that too, though Inland Empire didn't work as well for me. i think what you are saying about her being both a male fantasy of a victim and fiercly rejecting the role of victim is another element in lynch's work (one i think is often overlooked). i wonder if he's read kavan.
Lynch definitely loves toying with victim-fantasies. It wasn't until I started watching old Jean Rollin movies that I noticed that the beautiful-defenseless-amnesiac-stranger premise of Mulholland Drive was a twist on a quintessential male fantasy pulp premise. When I first saw Mulholland, the sex scenes seemed to come out of nowhere; now they're inevitable.And have you seen Jacques Rivette's Celine and Julie Go Boating? For my money, it's another big reference point for Lynch's film.
i haven't seen Jean Rollin's films (now i want to!), but i've watched a lot of old hollywood films that primed me to see her that way, coupled with knowing from character names and noir touches in twin peaks that lynch loves that genre. also, she's framed that way right from the opening shots. yeah, the sex scenes are inevitable and essential to understand the narrative.i haven't seen Celine and Julie Go Boating, either. i love jacques rivette, but i haven't been able to find a copy of that film, yet. i didn't know about the lynch connection, though it makes sense to me because rivette, like lynch, loves noir with a more subjective personal feel. (i'm mostly thinking of histoire de marie et julien.)
I've never seen any of Rivette's other films, but I really would like to. Soon! As for Celine and Julie, the other title is "Phantom Ladies Over Paris", which, just picture that part in Mulholland where their faces are superimposed over the LA skyline, which I can't seem to find a screen-cap of.Jean Rollin is very much a pulp director, but a weird and personal one, with excellent 70s aesthetics. Total art-sleaze.
oh, i think you'll love l'histoire de marie et julien. it's surreal, and questions what is reality like in ice and in the 3 lynch films we are talking about. i really want to get a copy of celine and julie now. "phantom ladies over paris" even sounds so lynchian (phantom ladies over hollywood, yeah).
Really fantastic book.Hilariously enough, I found Kavan through the Trillion Year Spree sf encyclopedia - Brian Aldiss talked her up, and quoted a long excerpt, and that made me run out and get all of her books I could find. Had a similar experience wrt Jean Rhys, with a bad review of her written by John Updike.
1.: the reference to the Gaze: fascinating. I can’t say how much. I’ll be mulling this for sometime going forward. Imagine: losing a part of our identity the moment we realise someone is watching us: I had always seen it the other way around: someon’es gaze augmenting, or adding, to our identity: I mean, once you internalise a gaze, isn’t that an addition rather than a subtraction of our id? 2. The girl as a victim: I didn’t buy it. Yes, we are ‘told’ she is a victim, but her actions negate this. She seems to up and leave whenever it suits her,. What I think is happening here is that the girl personifies qualities which the narrator, and thus Kavan herself, deem deplorable. In fact, after I had this thought, I looked up Kavan, and here is a photo of her: anorexic, fair, etc: could Kavan have been hell bent on a self hate orgy, but of course, this is all pie in the sky: ultimately, no matter how much we profess to hate ourselves, ultimately we secretly really ‘like’ ourselves. We are just too scared to admit it. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be what we are.
3. I’ve seen Celine and Julie go Boating. But not Mulholland drive. Apropos of nothing to do with Ice, it was a double edged sword experience for me. I loved the opening sequence, and everything really, until an hour and a half into ‘le spectacle’ we get into the movie within a movie sequence with the Victoria saga in the ‘haunted house’. That episode was a movie in its own right and seemed overcooked. I will say this though: given the ending, it seemed as if though the two girls had always known each other and were playing an elaborate ‘make belief’ game (read silly buggers) with each other:which I approve of, mind. I followed up, btw, with his ‘top secret’ (1998) which was amazingly different in style, pacing and theme.
Moira, yeah, it's amazing how mediocre sources can lead to great things, sometimes. If you know what you're looking for, you can hone right in.Kniga -- I guess I see the narrator's gaze an entirely destructive. Certnaly to the Girl, who is a paradoxical victim/rebel. The narrator makes her into a victim again and again, in fantasy/hallucination and in just how he views and describes her throughout. She's absolutely a victim in his eyes, and his idea of her here is partly what is creating her at all (if, as in your reading, he's projecting her). But, reality breaks in: when they actually meet, she resists.
With C&J, I guess I view the movie within as an obviously not-so-inherently-interesting melodrama (I think Rivette borrowed the plot from a popular play or story). What is interesting is how the leads interact with it: first getting drawn in despite its irrelevance (as one is, as the viewer is with them here), then conspiring to "save" a character from the narrative endpoint she is destined for. Much more fun than the actually story. For me, it galvanizes the film.
the reference to the Gaze: fascinating. I can’t say how much. I’ll be mulling this for sometime going forward. Imagine: losing a part of our identity the moment we realise someone is watching us: I had always seen it the other way around: someon’es gaze augmenting, or adding, to our identity: I mean, once you internalise a gaze, isn’t that an addition rather than a subtraction of our id? i think that the Gaze is always destructive to our identity. the Gaze turns a person into an object (so the person loses their subjectivity) and it's always about the awareness of loss. so when you internalise the Gaze, you are internalising that which diminishes you. it's like the thing that you look at that tells you that you are never quite right, never good enough, never matching the ideal of you. and it makes you a thing.
the thing is, the gaze is not about being seen for who we are. i think it's recognition that has the sense of adding to our identity.
i'm feeling quite teased around celine and julie (and jealous!)
Emilie(and Nate ), re the gaze: The wiki link is actually misleading. Here is the best description I found of Lacan’s gaze:‘
Thus, Lacan asserts the pre-existence to the seen of a given-to-be-seen in relation to an internalized or imagined gaze (p.74) His formulation of the gaze entails that the human being's subjectivity is determined through a gaze which places the subject under observation, causing the subject to experience themselves as an object which is seen. The gaze alienates subjects from themselves by causing the subject to identify with itself as the objet a , the object of the drives, thus desiring scopic satisfaction. Yet, in constructing the human subject as this objet a , the gaze denies the subject its full subjectivity. The subject is reduced to being the object of desire and, in identifying with this object, it becomes alienated from itself. ‘
So, we are talking alienation from self really rather than loss of autonomy. I find logical fault in Locan’s argument. One cannot deny a subject their ‘full’ subjectivity as this is a non divisble category: (just as you can’t be not fully pregnant). Subjectivity is always present in its entirety, although it can, admittedly, be informed by Locan’s subject-objet a identification. Therefore, any alienation must, accordingly, be only a transitory phenomenon. Meaning, the alienation exists during the process of identification between subject and object: at the moment when the two are separate entities. After identification is complete, there can no longer be any alienation, by default, as the Subject’s subjectivity now incorporates the qualia of objet a’. I can imagine, however, a continuous repetition of these processes. And why not? At my place of work, we encourage this sort of thing through 360* feedback in performance appraisals. I can’t think of a better example for Locan’s ‘gaze’.
lacan would say that the idea of unity of the subject that you are arguing is an illusion. for lacan, a person is always a subject and an object that cannot be reconciled. it is not possible. his image is of the person looking in the mirror-the image in the mirror is whole, the person looking at the image is not. the person looking into the mirror wishes to be the perfect image she/he sees, but she/he can never be that, the image is not what we think of as real, that image exists only in the world of the imaginary. that is the ideal we can never quite be. that is the voice that we are never quite right. that is the feeling that we aren't whole. for lacan, we wish to be the image in the mirror and not the person outside looking at the image.lacan is talking about alienation of the self from the self, but it's also about the fragmentation of the self.
also, not just lacanian theory, but feminist interpretations of lacan that examine the ways in which (socially) the one who gazes is male and the ways in which women internalise the male gaze and so look at themselves as objects to be consumed by men, and in this way women are fragmented and make victims and in a sense, hypnotised to do and want things that are external to them.
i think the girl as victim/girl as resisting victim is connected to the ideas of the gaze in that the narrator fragments the girl, the breaks her apart, he separates her from herself, he takes her away from herself (he wants to make her his, not hers), he destroys her. it could be argued that it is his gazing at her that makes of her a victim (and she does say explicitly that she loses her ability to resist when she looks into his ice-blue eyes, lost in gaze). for the girl struggles with the sense of being fated to be a victim because of prior abuse, but her image in the mirror is not a victim.
i'm not saying that lacanian theory or feminist approaches to lacanian theory are right, i think the theory is an interesting way to analyse the book.
I had totally forgotten that explicit reference was made to the girl losing herself in the gaze, but that really drives it home. I was mostly thinking of the feminist version of male gaze as applied to the destructive way the narrator views her throughout, as my working knowledge of Lacan is extremely shaky. But, as an aside, he seems pretty amazing. I believe that he wrote some of his first published articles for surrealist journals, including in defense of the Papin sisters.

My copy has a much less evocative but no less glamorous cover of a disco looking girl covered in ice. I can't find a picture of it on the internet, alas.