This is a puzzling book; not a traditional mystery at all, despite the promise of the sub-title (A PHILOSOPHICAL MYSTERY). The eponymous “missing shade of blue” is derived from David Hume's proposition: Knowing all colors EXCEPT a particular shade of blue, could a person then rely on imagination rather than direct experience in order to conjure an apprehension of that missing shade in his mind? (Hume believed the answer was 'yes'). Substitute love for blue in this paradigm and that is the central puzzle of the story.
The proposition is explored through 3 main characters: A French translator sojourning in Edinburgh in order to translate David Hume's original manuscripts into French, a Scottish professor of philosophy and his wife, a painter. The professor, Sanderson, is the most interesting of the three. He's a dedicated atheist who has lost his passion for wife, teaching, and the study of philosophy. His rigorous pursuit of rationality seems to imply that his sense of humanity has reached a post-modern dead-end. Ironically, he is now writing an academic treatise on “happiness” in order to satisfy the college's demand for published research. Writing the book has only served to accentuate his sense of futility, an emotion that reverberates as he considers the translator's innocent query: Does philosophy invite unhappy people or do people become unhappy by studying philosophy? Sanderson's unhappiness is reflected in innumerable ways. He suspects his wife is having an affair; what remains of his love for her cannot bring him happiness; his own lover – a passionless sexual coupling – has just jilted him; his body is disintegrating from a virulently disfiguring ezcema; and he consciously walls himself off from all intimate contact, refusing to form a connection to his mentally afflicted stepson Alfie. As the story progresses, so does his disintegration. His parsing of happiness, eudaimonia (the Greek idea of “living well”), and ataraxia (the Greek idea of imperturbability [harmony?]) has left him with an emptiness as if to say: Is this all there is? For the reader, his seemingly self-imposed solitude may not be a choice but a consequence of his inability to experience happiness.
The translator experiences the same paradoxes in his repressed exploration of love. His first person narrative is an introspective examination of the ambivalent attachments in his life: Devotion to his fragile mother, affection and admiration rather than passion for a female acquaintance; commitment to telling a dead philosopher's story rather than discovering his own; fearfully insulating himself from the recurrence of a violent anxiety attack he experienced as a student; the many unspoken connections he felt for his alienated father. For much of the narrative, we see him as if he were looking in on the human drama through a window, trying to apply reason to guide his interpretations. Is reason enough of a grounding to infer the recognition of love?
The wife is viewed as the modality of instinctiveness. Her paintings reflect a sense of vitality, animal frankness, and diminishment – the tide of joy and expectation now ebbing. But there is rhythm and life even in that aspect of receding. “Carrie was concerned with the sort of space where you would expect to see someone – it could be a room, a bed, a street – and it was this space that held the absence of a figure.” Another philosophical conundrum waiting in the wings – can we know happiness without knowing sadness, or pleasure without pain? To what degree is experience defined by its opposite?
The author circumvents the issue of substituting religion in place of empiricism – the very issue Hume sought to expel. At various points, each of the characters distinguishes between religion as an experience, and religion as a rational construct designed to alleviate fear or “make us feel better.” Sanderson, at one point, even likens religion to a filter – forcing experience into a predefined interpretation, a mental straight-jacket.
These three strands are tied together quite neatly. We see Sanderson at his most honest when he is connected to nature – standing in the rushing stream, fly fishing. The story concludes with the translator's sense of epiphany. He loses and only later recovers his translations of 3 essays. In the interim he re-translates the essays. It's an interim that contains a series of fateful events. The translations done before this experience bears no resemblance to the ones done later – the translator's life has been so greatly changed: “They [the old versions] were so unlike the new versions that they might have been done by a different translator, a different person. Which, in a sense, was the case.”
The main attraction of this difficult book is it's disciplined prose: The fiction rather than the philosophy. The translator's dedication to his craft is described as a transcendental labor. Each of the characters is given a unique voice, a clear viewpoint. The writing is beautiful in its indirectness: The translator recalls the permanent sadness of his mother: “For much of my childhood my mother had been wrapped in a cocoon of unwellness that was hard to enter. But children take love wherever they can find it – that is what I came to believe – and I managed to find love also in my mother, albeit in homeopathic dilution.”
I must admit, I'm fascinated by attempts to link philosophy and fiction even though the area takes me outside my “comfort zone.” I'm not well-read in philosophy but enjoy the piece-meal introduction such works of fiction afford. On the other hand, it's a different kind of fiction, a type that's not easily accessible to emotions. It's this ambivalence that once more leads me to a 3 star rating.