The Bell by Iris Murdoch (April/May 2018)

[Nigeyb]

This is a discussion thread for The Bell by Iris Murdoch...



The Bell by Iris Murdoch

A lay community of thoroughly mixed-up people is encamped outside Imber Abbey, home of an enclosed order of nuns. A new bell, legendary symbol of religion and magic, is rediscovered. Dora Greenfield, erring wife, returns to her husband. Michael Mead, leader of the community, is confronted by Nick Fawley, with whom he had disastrous homosexual relations, while the wise old Abbess watches and prays and exercises discreet authority. And everyone, or almost everyone, hopes to be saved, whatever that may mean...Iris Murdoch's funny and sad novel is about religion, the fight between good and evil, and the terrible accidents of human frailty.

[Susan]

I am looking forward to discussing this. I had never read Iris Murdoch before and had no real expectations. In the beginning I found the characters really frustrating, but I got more into it as I went along.

[Nigeyb]

I plan to start this in the next few days - I have a copy out of the library

[Judy]

I really liked this and found it a compelling read, which should make for a good discussion. I had read a couple of Iris Murdoch books many years ago but don't really remember them, but I would like to read more by her after this.

[Hugh]

I read this so long ago that I can barely remember it, in fact the only thing I clearly remember is having to look up the word rebarbative!

I have read another 15 Murdoch books more recently and should re-read this one, though I read my parents' copy and don't have one myself.

[Judy]

Haha, Hugh, the word rebarbative turns up endlessly and I was just wondering why on earth she used it so much, then realised it was supposed to be a pet phrase for one of the characters!

[Val]

Do you think the repeated use of the word 'rebarbative' is intended to be rebarbative?

[Susan]

I found some of the characters, if not rebarbative, then certainly irritating, Val :) Actually, I thought this was a later novel, then realised it was published earlier than I thought, in 1958. Although that made sense with Colin Wilson writing about her in the memoir we read.

I listened to this on Audible and Miriam Margolyes did the voices so well. She spoke as Dora Greenfield just how I imagined her; a slightly breathless and a little childish!

[Nigeyb]

I've just started this. Two pages in. Iris certainly can write. I'm already intrigued.

[Nigeyb]

Reading this (and specifically the assertive Paul) straight after 'You Could Do Something Amazing with Your Life You Are Raoul Moat ' (and with 'John le Carré: The Biography' currently on the go), I conclude masculinity has a heck of a lot to answer for. Obvious I know, but undeniable.

[Susan]

Can I just say I felt a little sorry for Paul. I know he was irritating and - dare I say - boring, as well as being a little bit of a bully. However, if my other half left their suitcase on the train after chasing a butterfly (not to mention my hat!), I'd be cross too and I'm female...

[Judy]

I find it hard to understand why Dora goes back to Paul in the first place, since she has already found that they can't live together happily because they really don't have much in common and he is so determined to control her. But I suppose we wouldn't have a story if she wasn't tempted back.

[Nigeyb]

According to the first two sentences in the book....


Dora Greenfield left her husband because she was afraid of him. She decided six months later to return to him for the same reason.

The opening paragraph concludes with....

She decided at last that the persecution of his presence was to be preferred to the persecution of his absence.

I've only just started but Dora, so far, is portrayed as very immature and lacking in self awareness. Though she is committing small acts of rebellion.

[Susan]

Perhaps it was just me that will have some sympathy with Paul, but I found Dora intensely irritating - especially in the beginning.

[Nigeyb]

I am enjoying this far more than I was expecting. Early days, however I already conclude that Iris Murdoch is a fine writer. Her attention to the little details is what has delighted me so far. For example, Dora protecting the Red Admiral butterfly on the train, and the description of her embarrassment as she realises that two fellow passengers are also heading to Imber Abbey.

[Nigeyb]

The other thing that has surprised and delighted me, is how easy to read this is. I had formed the impression it might be quite challenging. Nothing could be further from the truth. So far, it's accessible, lively and poignant.

So far, so impressed

[Susan]

I was also surprised to hear Iris Murdoch described as 'difficult,' as I didn't think she was. Mind you, I have only read this one novel.

[Nigeyb]

I think Dora has to be very spontaneous and immature for the rest of the plot to work.


This is still a beguiling and unpredictable book.

Definitely not my last book by Iris Murdoch.

[Nigeyb]

Just read chapter 6, and I have now embarked on chapter 7. These two chapters provide more background on Michael Meade and seem to be taking the book in a new direction.

I'm enjoying getting the perspectives, and personal histories, of different characters.

Everyone at Imber is trying to figure out how to lead a meaningful life amid the disintegrating ethical certainties of a secular society. Or so it seems.

[Val]

Nigeyb wrote: "Everyone at Imber is trying to figure out how to lead a meaningful life amid the disintegrating ethical certainties of a secular society. Or so it seems."
Yes, I think that is the general idea, but meanwhile Dora is just living in the moment.

[Susan]

I think that was when the novel started working for me. I enjoyed finding out about Michael and moving away from the Dora/Paul scenario. Then, when it turned back to their story, I was more involved in the novel as a whole.

[Nigeyb]

Val wrote: "...meanwhile Dora is just living in the moment..."


That's a very good point Val. Probably as a counterpoint to the more conflicted characters pondering how best to lead a meaningful life

Susan wrote: "I enjoyed finding out about Michael and moving away from the Dora/Paul scenario. Then, when it turned back to their story, I was more involved in the novel as a whole."

I'm still with Michael, so eagerly await what comes next. Thanks Susan.

[Judy]

I think the whole story involving Michael is probably the strongest element of the book, for me.

[Nigeyb]

Judy wrote: "I think the whole story involving Michael is probably the strongest element of the book, for me."

It's certainly very original and intriguing. I have also been enjoying Dora and Paul's story too though. I'll keep you posted as I work through the book.

Overall, I'm still really surprised how much I am enjoying it.

[Nigeyb]

About halfway now, one of the minor pleasures of this book is the way Iris Murdoch describes those small moments of intense happiness which the various characters experience (e.g. Toby swimming in the lake, Michael enjoying a drink in a pub). These periodic little realisations of personal happiness are what make life worth living, so it's gratifying to see them feature so regularly in this wonderful novel.

[Susan]

I thought that, oddly for a female writer, her male characters were far more interesting than the female ones. I really liked Michael and Toby and she made Toby seem innocent, but not annoying, even though he was naive.

[Hugh]

Susan wrote: "I thought that, oddly for a female writer, her male characters were far more interesting than the female ones"

I think this is true for a lot of her novels! Once you have read a few you also expect her to make them do pretty strange things...

[Susan]

I really like my fiction to stay in the realms of reality, Hugh. Perhaps I was lucky I read a fairly early novel? I did enjoy this, but I am not that inspired to read on.

[Nigeyb]

Susan wrote: "Perhaps I was lucky I read a fairly early novel? I did enjoy this, but I am not that inspired to read on."

Interesting. Thanks Susan.

Is The Bell untypical of Iris Murdoch's other work?

I hope so, but your comment makes me think perhaps not.

Whats your view Hugh?

Susan wrote: "I thought that, oddly for a female writer, her male characters were far more interesting than the female ones. I really liked Michael and Toby and she made Toby seem innocent, but not annoying, even though he was naive."

Yes, I notice you took against Dora quite quickly. I must confess I really like her. As Val suggests above, her spontaneity and live-in-the-moment approach provide a good counterpoint to the other more complex characters.

I'm guessing she can't possibly stay with Paul who, despite his professed love for her, is a complete mismatch.

I'm hoping we get to discover more about Nick and Catherine who, at the halfway point, are both frustratingly opaque. I hope we discover a lot more about both of them, and indeed their relationship with each other.

[Susan]

I won't post spoilers, but we do learn more about Nick and Catherine. I will admit that I never warmed to Dora, to be honest.

[Nigeyb]

Ooooh, intriguing. I am now looking forward to the second half even more

[Nigeyb]

I've just read about Michael's "apology" to Toby which ends in a somewhat surprising and ambiguous way. This book really is most unusual and unpredictable - but I am completely convinced by the community at Imber, and can imagine the place in my mind's eye.

I say again, a splendid novel

[Nigeyb]

Is there more to Dora than meets the eye?


....Dora had then estimated, with a devastating exactness which was usually alien to her, how much of sheer contempt there was in Paul’s love; and always would be, she reflected, since she had few illusions about her ability to change herself....


Interesting comment in Adam Dalva's GR review....

I love Iris Murdoch.

I've come to expect certain things from her novels:

one astonishing, humorous transition (here, it comes early, on a train);

at least 2 abrupt sexually-centered plot twists that make me exclaim out loud on the subway;

a few incredible lines that border on philosophy.

Most of all, there's the sense in her novels that anything is possible - as the excellent A.S. Byatt interview puts it, she has the instincts of the 19th century novelist, though she's thoroughly contemporary.

[Nigeyb]

Into the last third now and it’s coming to the boil nicely.


Finally, Nick makes a proper appearance, fixing the lorry before whisking Catherine and Toby off for a drive.

So many interesting plot strands all coming to a head.

I’m consciously reading it slowly, better to savour it

[Nigeyb]

Chapter 17: The chapter in which Toby and Dora retrieve the lost Abbey Bell is just brilliant. Thrilling. What a book 💥

[Susan]

So glad to hear you are enjoying this so much, Nigeyb. I liked it more, the further I got into it.

[Judy]

I’m also glad you are enjoying it so much, Nigeyb. I think Michael’s apology to Toby and the way they both react afterwards is brilliant writing and so is the discovery of the Bell.

Does anyone see the submerged Bell as a symbol? I feel it must be but am not sure of what.

[Nigeyb]

Judy wrote: "Does anyone see the submerged Bell as a symbol? I feel it must be but am not sure of what. "


Bells also feature in a couple of the lay sermons. I am sure there is much symbolism to ponder however, for now, I shall lay those musings aside as I am just enjoying the story.....

Noel, Dora's "friend", has just turned up to cover the bell ceremony as a journalist, to add even more spice to a highly combustible forthcoming scenario. Iris is really stoking up the possibilities. I eagerly await this book's conclusion. Delicious. It just gets better and better.

[Val]

Nigeyb wrote: "(Dora's) spontaneity and live-in-the-moment approach provide a good counterpoint to the other more complex characters."
I wouldn't go so far as to say I liked her, but that is the reason I didn't find her annoying. The others are thinking about serious subjects most of the time, while she barely thinks at all. A whole book about such a scatterbrain would annoy me (see ratings for The Portable Veblen, The Idiot and similar).

[Val]

Judy wrote: "Does anyone see the submerged Bell as a symbol? I feel it must be but am not sure of what."
Here's one idea: There are two bells, the new shiny one as a symbol of hope, and the historical, grubby, buried one, which should have been left well alone. The legend associated with the old bell involves a shameful secret and a death, and the bell is thought to foretell a death when it rings.
I don't want to reveal the ending to those who haven't finished yet, but there are parallels with the story of the two bells.

[Nigeyb]

That's all very plausible Val. Interestingly Dora describes her plan with the old bell as witchcraft.

I've just finished ‘The Bell’ and am vacillating between a four and a five star rating. I've settled on four stars for now, but may up it after a bit more reflection.

I loved the story (or stories) and thought it both amusing and moving. And profound too.

I'm really glad we decided to read this - and will definitely be reading more books by Iris Murdoch.

[Judy]

I like your idea, Val. I've been thinking about this a bit today, and I also think the old bell might symbolise the uncomfortable realities below the surface of the commune, such as Michael and Nick's respective troubles, and those of the nuns.

[Val]

I'm not comfortable with the idea of enclosed orders, but the nuns in this book don't seem to have any problems when compared to those trying to live a spiritual life while remaining in contact with the secular world.

[Nigeyb]

Judy wrote: "I also think the old bell might symbolise the uncomfortable realities below the surface of the commune, such as Michael and Nick's respective troubles, and those of the nuns."

That's a very credible suggestion - I think that's probably correct Judy.

The destructive force of love-gone-wrong is a recurring theme

I liked how homosexuality is treated as very matter of fact. Surely quite unusual for a novel written in 1958. Indeed a person's sexuality seems of no consequence to Iris, it's more about the effects of loving someone you're not necessarily allowed to possess.

[Val]

Nigeyb wrote: "The destructive force of love-gone-wrong is a recurring theme"
True. Several characters have fallen in love to the point of obsession with someone they shouldn't for one reason or another: Michael with Nick (wrong because of his age at the time, much more than his sexuality), Catherine with Michael (which is about sexuality, she already knows about him and Nick) and Paul with Dora (they are obviously temperamentally unsuited to each other). What is less clear, to my mind, are the feelings of the loved. Dora is said to love Paul, but the reasons given near the start of the book are not affectionate (Iris makes a point of repeating 'money, his flat, money, the flat in Knightsbridge' for instance) and she is also attracted to both Noel Spens and Toby, and I don't think I ever got to understand Nick.

[Nigeyb]

That's a great summary Val - thanks


Val wrote: "What is less clear, to my mind, are the feelings of the loved. Dora is said to love Paul, but the reasons given near the start of the book are not affectionate and she is also attracted to both Noel Spens and Toby, and I don't think I ever got to understand Nick."

Here's my tenpenneth...

Dora is young and immature when she meets Paul. He is older and seems impressive. She is flattered by his attention. She is also unsure of her own place in the world and already knows she has only slight artistic talent.

Dora and Paul are clearly a mismatch. The fault for their dysfunctional relationship all lies with Paul. He is domineering and a bully, who seeks to completely dominate Dora. He should have realised she could not thrive in this kind of relationship (few could I'd have thought).

Dora, still not aware of her own mind, understandably vacillates between submitting to Paul and following her natural instinct to be spontaneous.

I agree that Nick was frustratingly opaque and is probably the novel's main weak point. His motivation is never clear, and pondering the book upon completion, I am still confused about why he did what he did. Perhaps the plot required that a degree of opacity to work? And, it would probably have confused things, to write sections from Nick's perspective (interesting though it would have been).

We can probably conclude that Nick was always very unhappy and uncertain - perhaps also a bit vindictive given that he manages to ruin Michael's life twice.

[Judy]

I agree about your description of the Paul and Dora relationship, Nigeyb - I think he is clearly impossible for her to live with. I found it rather unlikely that she would go back to him in the first place, but I suppose he wears her down - we are told she goes back out of fear.

I'm also not sure about Nick's motivation, except that he is deeply troubled and seems to be disillusioned with everyone and everything, including himself.

[Val]

I did have some sympathy for Paul in that relationship, although not to the same extent as James and Michael did in the book.

[Susan]

I think I may be the only one who had a lot of sympathy for Paul. He was boring, and a bit of a bully, but I was quite moved when he gave her those two letters, which he carried around. She, of course, lost them - or destroyed them, or something. I found Dora intensely irritating - she seemed unable to carry out the simplest action without making a silly mistake. Losing shoes, suitcases and everything en route. Vanishing and not thinking about the consequences of her actions. Not only did she treat Paul badly, in my opinion, but she also treated the other guy badly - the one in London, whose name I forget. He told her that, indeed, when he arrived to report on the finding of the bell - saying that she vanished that day from his flat (on her sudden decision to visit him in London) and not really thinking about him at all. Hopefully, she grew up a bit later, but I found her infuriating...

[Val]

Dora was hopeless at thinking things through, organising herself or carrying out any plan, except that silly idea with the old bell which was the major factor in destroying the community. This is the negative side of her spontaneity. I would not call her a bitch though, as she does not intend the harm she causes.
The London chap is Noel Spens. She turns up at his flat without warning, takes all the food out of the fridge, doesn't talk to Paul on the phone and then leaves again. Paul is understandably annoyed when Noel turns up, because he assumes (correctly) that Noel has come to see Dora. Noel is understandably annoyed, but blames the community for making Dora feel guilty (which is not correct).