A Fugue in Time

[Brian E]

Kathleen wrote: "I've finished, and have to say, right now it's rivaling Wuthering Heights as my favorite book, and WH has had that spot for decades...."

It makes sense that you like both books as there are similarities. Lark, like Heathcliff, is an outsider brought into the family without becoming part of it and then enters into a romance with a family member. WH is definitely gothic with the house and moors a gothic setting, and "Fugue" has 99 Wiltshire Place that, like many a gothic castle, is a dwelling that feels alive.
There is also the sometimes overwrought gothic romantic elements as I, like Wobbley, at times thought a romantic scene or two in "Fugue" was starting to get "too sappy," right before Godden would cleverly rescue it. Granted, no Fugue romance even approaches the level of Heathcliff /Catherine but how can it when that one is so off-the-charts batsh#t crazy.
For the record I enjoyed WH mainly because it is so batsh#t crazy and operates better as a cautionary gothic horror folktale than a romance. (spoiler for WH) (view spoiler)[ I always pictured that after the story's ending parents on the Yorkshire moors would be telling their children "don't play or walk through the moors at night or the ghosts of Heathcliff and Catherine will get you, and we don't want that to happen do we?" (hide spoiler)]

[Sara, New School Classics]

Brian, I always pictured those Yorkshire parents hiding the book from the kids. 😊 Your comparison of the two books was very interesting. I particular like your point that the moors and the house serve a similar purpose.

Kathleen--I am so happy you enjoyed this one as much as I did. I am excited to read the rest of Godden's work--particularly China Court.

[Kathleen]

Yes, I like that too, Brian. I am a sucker for the gothic elements, but mostly for such a strong evocative style. Can't get enough of that stuff. :-)

Not only did Godden stop short of sappiness, but (as I think Brian mentioned in his review) she skillfully kept the thread of mystery going. I loved the way she'd introduce a character we didn't know, and then make us wait a bit and wonder before enlightening us.

And yes, Sara--China Court is a must for me too!

[Wobbley]

Kathleen wrote: "I've finished, and have to say, right now it's rivaling Wuthering Heights as my favorite book, and WH has had that spot for decades."

Amazing! It's such a rare thing to find a new read that rivals old favourites.

[Wobbley]

Okay, one question I cannot wait to ask, because I'm going to need to return the book to the library, and then I won't find all the references I'm looking for. But I know lots of people haven't finished yet, so I'll put my question in spoiler tags:

(view spoiler)[Do you think Pax dies in the war? I really like Pax, so of course I want the answer to be "no". I was thinking he did die, because in the radio program, Verity is called "Verity Dane", and why would a child have his mother's last name in the 1940s if his father is still alive? I mean, I guess Pax might have taken Grizel's last name when he became head of the household, but it seems kind of unlikely. But then, I noticed that the text says that Verity is a shade darker than Rolls: "but then his father is very dark indeed." Is very dark, not was very dark, and so maybe that's meant to suggest that Pax is still alive when Verity is seven. But then, this book uses the present tense in the past so often that maybe I'm giving that "is" too much weight, simply because I want Pax to be alive. Thoughts? (hide spoiler)]

[Sara, New School Classics]

Wobbley:

(view spoiler)[I read it that way, as well. The discussion he has with Grizel about hope when she is trying to turn him away and his answer that he wants a child. "Yes. I want a child. I want to make quite sure of that while I am here on earth." Then when Verity is listening to the radio greeting, and after we are given his description: "Again the dark little boy in the dark sailor suit flies upstairs." This is the tie that Pax has to the house and the form he takes is only this one. I agree with you that the tense is because within the house, we have been told, all past is present.

Also we are told "There is no wedding day; among all the occasions found in the house, there is no wedding day." I took that to mean that Pax does not return and he and Grizel are never married. (hide spoiler)]

So, now that we have begun, I want to know what you all think about (view spoiler)[Lark's heritage. The way she is presented by Eye to Selina, it is obvious to me that her mother has a meaning for him. It is the mother he mourns, not the father. Why does he have possession of the child when the parents are traveling on the train? He says she will be a "sister" to Selina, and I could not help wondering if she IS a sister. If this is so, then Lark is tied by blood to the house and the final product, Verity, has Dane blood from both sides of his ancestry.

I think it is significant that it is not through Rollo that Grizel comes, but through Pelham. Perhaps that is just to emphasize that he never removes his love from Lark for an instant, but I saw it also as a reflection of his words to Grizel about having no control of life. "But that isn't the war,' said Rolls reasonably. 'That is life my dear child, not the war. You can't arrange life. It doesn't let you, I tried,' said Rolls. 'I failed.' (hide spoiler)]

[Kathleen]

Thank you, Wobbley--it is amazing! Of course I'll have to read it again to be sure. :-)

I think your spoiler is an excellent question, and I agree with you and Sara.

Sara, to your spoiler, (view spoiler)[I was going to ask the same thing about Lark. I felt she was the Eye's child. It's interesting that she ended up more like Grizelda than like the Eye though. And yes, I think it's significant that Rollo has lost his chance for love/to be a father. How true that we can't arrange life! We just have to hope we're making the right decisions as each one comes along. (hide spoiler)]

Okay, here's my first question, a simple one. (view spoiler)[What's the meaning of the mice? (hide spoiler)]

[Brian E]

Hey, cut it out guys, my brain is watching football and isn’t fully ready to think so deeply. Here’s my input:

(view spoiler)[I had no thought that Pax did not survive the war. The novel seemed more optimistic about the house still living. So my initial answer was that they used “Dane” instead of “Masterson” because it was shorter or in error.
But the comments that you guys bring up do seem to indicate that Pax and Grizel conceived Verity out of wedlock and Pax then got killed in battle. Verity had to be old enough in 1947 to make observations on the snow-slippage-stopping material. As that is not an entirely obvious outcome, whoever scripted the radio play just made a call. If I look at it that person’s way then I feel bad for Pax because, not only does he die, but he didn’t get an heir to the Masterson name.
These are the book passages on Verity that I have found.

p. 9 - "‘Gravel? says little Verity, Rolls’s great-great-nephew in the bad winter of nineteen forty-seven. ‘Gravel? It isn’t gravel, it is grapenuts.’"

p. 173 to 174 - "Uncle Billy has a nutty rollicking voice. Verity listens with his chin of the back of a chair. Verity is a solemn little boy with blue eyes and chestnut hair, the coloring of his great-great-uncle Rolls, of Rollo, of Roly, Elizabeth and Griselda. He is a shade darker than they, but then his father is very dark indeed.

Apples in the cabin,
And toffees in the hold…

Again the dark little boy in the dark sailor suit flies upstairs.

The sails were made of satin.
The masts were made of gold.” (hide spoiler)]

Well that’s enough thinking with the brain so I’ll return to watching people bash each others brains in.

[Wobbley]

my response on my question: (view spoiler)[I really want Pax to survive, and I prefer your interpretation, Brian E. But, I hadn't put my question together with the mention in the book of "no wedding day", as you did Sara. I think that does lean towards him dying before they marry. How sad. (hide spoiler)]

my response on Sara's question: (view spoiler)[I, too, read this as a strong possibility of Lark being the Eye's daughter, which I guess would have been a bit awkward if she and Rollo had ended up together... Whether or not she is actually his daughter, I do think he was in a relationship with Lark's mother at the time of her death, because they often mention him grieving Lark's mother in the same breath as him grieving Griselda. (hide spoiler)]

my response on Kathleen's question: (view spoiler)[I honestly hadn't thought of this question, so I'm just making up this answer as I go. I'm not sure the mice have any exact meaning. I think it's just one of the things used to talk about the pattern and life of the house over time. One of the things I liked in the writing is how she sometimes repeats lines later, and it sort of brings in a different emphasis or meaning to that line. I sort of think of the mice similarly: it's about the repetition of patterns in the life of the house over time. (hide spoiler)]

[Wobbley]

hang on, I've just thought of something else for my question: (view spoiler)[At one point, it says that Grizel inherits Lark's jewelry. Why would that happen if she and Pax never marry? He says he wants to get married right away, so it doesn't feel like there's time for him to go back to Italy, collect Lark's jewelry, and bring it back to England for Grizel, all before they marry. I feel like, in the middle of a war, it would take a long time to get Lark's effects to England. This makes it seem more like Grizel and Pax have a longer relationship, and makes me feel a bit hopeful that maybe he doesn't die in the war after all. And then, possibly the reason the house has seen no weddings is because they weren't living in the house during the time just after they decided to marry, because of the bomb that went off in the garden?? Or maybe I'm just grasping... (hide spoiler)]

[Terris]

I can see that I need to read faster! I can't wait to read all your "spoilers" and see what is going on! haha!

[Brian E]

I've been searching on the itnernet for anything where Godden has expressed what her intent was on the issue first brought up by Wobbley. I have come up dry but I did find a review by a person called Kat where she makes a Wuthering Height comparison. Since she sounds smart and insightful, I am attaching her review: https://mirabiledictu.org/2018/02/25/...

Kat favorably mentions the next three books in the Godden Group Read. She considers our next book Kingfishers Catch Fire to be one of Godden's two best novels, along with our fourth read, In this House of Brede.

[Sara, New School Classics]

Brian E wrote: "Hey, cut it out guys, my brain is watching football and isn’t fully ready to think so deeply. Here’s my input:

I had no thought that Pax did not survive the war. The novel seemed more optimistic a..."

Brian, (view spoiler)[your list regarding Verity includes "Again the dark little boy in the dark sailor suit flies upstairs." but I think this is Pax, running through the house in the games he plays with Lark. We first see this reference "Now and again, through the house, up the stairs, there flies a little boy who seems to belong to nobody; a little interloper. He is small and thin and dark-skinned and he is dressed in a foreign-looking dark-blue sailor suit, and black stockings and shoes. The shoes kick in the air with ecstasy and his eyes are always shut with bliss. He never walks. He always flies. Slowly he flies out of sight. Every now and again he comes again."

Or, do you think she is referencing Verity as a second version of Pax, running through the house? I took it was still Pax because he is still wearing the sailor suit. (hide spoiler)]

I am thinking about the mice--but got to get to class, so later.

[Brian E]

In response to Sara's spoiler remarks:

(view spoiler)[I did not get that there was a time jump. I just presumed “The dark little boy in the sailor suit” was still Verity, who was dark, but then Pax is “very dark indeed.”
The idea of Pax playing with Lark in the house confused me as I presumed Pax was much younger than his aunt and it made no sense that Pax came to Wiltshire Place to play games with his aunt when she was under 18.

On page 118 of my edition, it says that Lark played hide-and-seek with a young Pax while he was growing up in Italy and they pretended it was back at Wiltshire. So Pax learned about Wiltshire without ever having been in it.
But if Pax is the ‘interloper’ in the sailor suit that is flying through the house who “now and again he comes again” he flies through an imaginary version of the house, one existing in the memory of his playmate the very adult Lark, yet one that still manages to find its way from Lark’s memory into the institutional memory of Wiltshire Place? Too bizarre yet somehow makes sense from what Godden has written. This novel gets trippier the more I hear and think about it. (hide spoiler)]

[Sara, New School Classics]

I agree it is trippy, but I think (view spoiler)[he runs through the house in his imagination until he knows every nook and cranny, so he also becomes one with the house. He definitely states that he never walked, he flew. "She taught me the house from top to bottom. I could show you your way in it I think.' He laughed. 'She used to make me fly upstairs. Even then I used to think of flying. That made the game perfect for me. I always flew upstairs.' Perhaps the moment he stepped into the house all the memories he carried with him that were associated with it were added to the history.

I cannot explain the jewelry, but Pax would have inherited everything, so maybe he drew up a will before he left to fly again leaving his wealth to Grizel; or perhaps with no heir, Lark's things were sent to her closest blood relative, which would have been Verity, even if illegitimate. I do think Godden leaves us a lot of space to supply our own version of the details she doesn't give us. (hide spoiler)]

I think one of the great aspects of this book is the way so many things are left open-ended and the reader has to truly think about them and apply his own logic or imagination. That makes you feel closer to the characters, because you are always completing their feelings and their lives.

[Sara, New School Classics]

Kathleen - the mice: (view spoiler)[I appreciate Wobbley's thoughts on the mice. I did not ask myself about their meaning, except that they are creatures that inhabit the house over time and each of them shares the time with the people there. The house mice were for me like the "house cat" and "house dog", but the cat who is a mouser cannot keep them down. "There will always be plenty of mice." we are told. So, perhaps they simply represent the continuity of life in the house, the inevitability of life marching on even after death.

The one mouse that was exceptional was the dead one that Selina kept for three days. That represented to me how lonely and isolated Selina was, but also that she was more associated with the dead things and people than with the living. She assumed Grizelda's role in the home, but without any touch of Grizelda's feeling. While Grizelda wanted to keep a distance from her children, and managed with all but Elizabeth, Silena wanted to mold every aspect of Rollo's life. Interestingly, when Pelham mentions the mouse to her she claims to have forgotten it entirely, but it is the mention of it that brings out all the real mice, even the china mouse and the clockwork mouse are included. (hide spoiler)]

Brian: (view spoiler)[I found the section where Grizel is talking about Verity's future and his not going to Eton, she says he will get 2-3 years in an "exchange to Canada or Australia and of course some time in Italy. He will have estates to manage so they think agriculture..." So, he is acknowledged as Pax's son and inherits his estates. (hide spoiler)]

[Wobbley]

Brian E wrote: "I did find a review by a person called Kat where she makes a Wuthering Height comparison. Since she sounds smart and insightful, I am attaching her review"

Thanks for this, Brian E.

I do see the similarities with Wuthering Heights, especially some major plot points, and the sort of presence of ghosts. But I have to say A Fugue in Time didn't feel at all like a gothic story to me. I thought it had more of a subdued, melancholy feel to it, and there wasn't much in the way of mystery.

I also agree with Sara, that there are many things left open, for us to fill in on our own. Sometimes I don't like that in a book, but it really seems to match this one. (view spoiler)[Sara, I had forgotten that bit about Verity inheriting Pax's estates. While that could be interpreted in more than one way, I think I'm going to go with it being more evidence for Pax and Grizel being married -- ha ha, this is one of the perks of it being open-ended; there is evidence in both directions, so I can convince myself Pax is alive if that's the ending I want.

Also, I was thinking about what you said in your original spoiler question, about how if Lark is the Eye's daughter, then Verity has Dane blood from both sides of his ancestry. That's not quite right, is it? Pax doesn't have any of Lark's blood, does he? She's just his aunt, not his mother: "The Marchesa, my uncle's wife, was English. She lived in this house as a child, and as a girl... Her name is Lark. (hide spoiler)]

Oof, it's starting to get hard to remember which part of this conversation we're having in spoilers and which parts we're having openly! :)

[Sara, New School Classics]

Ah, you are right, Wobbley! No bloodline. This book is just begging to be read again!

[Brian E]

Sara wrote: " Brian (view spoiler)[ found the section where Grizel is talking about Verity's future and his not going to Eton, she says he will get 2-3 years in an "exchange to Canada or Australia and of course some time in Italy. He will have estates to manage so they think agriculture..." So, he is acknowledged as Pax's son and inherits his estates. (hide spoiler)]"

Right before the passage you quote in your spoiler (view spoiler)[ on page 13, it says “When Verity is thirteen the question of his senior high school arises. Grizel is asked where he will go.
‘We had hoped he might follow Pax to Eton’ says Grizel, ‘but I doubt now he has the brains to get in. Isn’t it splendid,’ says Grizel. ‘Joplin’s son has just passed in there. He is such a brilliant boy and of course now Eton is for scholars. Verity will get a grammar school and …” Then to the part that Sara cites.
I had thought that “WE had hoped” meant that perhaps Pax was alive. But then I remembered how much Pax planned before the child’s birth and decided that meant it could go either way. But the fact that Pax is never involved in the discussions indicates his passing as does the fact that the book states that Grizel inherits Lark’s jewelry. To do so, Grizel would have inherited it from Pax indicating both a strong possibility of a marriage and also a Pax death prior to Grizel’s, though not necessarily so early. (hide spoiler)]

[Wobbley]

Sara wrote: "Ah, you are right, Wobbley! No bloodline. This book is just begging to be read again!"

Right? There are so many things just hinted at, or else said before we know they are important, and so it's easy to miss things on a first read.

(view spoiler)[I think it's possible for them to describe Grizel as inheriting Lark's jewelry even if Pax is alive. If Grizel is Pax's wife, it might be natural to describe it that way even though Pax is the legal beneficiary, because it's a woman's jewelry, which would normally go on to be worn by another woman.

They do leave it ambiguous, but on balance I'm inclined to think that Pax and Grizel marry quickly as they'd planned, and that Pax does not survive the war. I still can't explain why Verity has Grizel's last name (though that might be more likely if Pax is dead before Verity is born??), but I think this interpretation matches most of the evidence. You're right, Brian E, about it only being Grizel who's consulted about Verity's education. And also, in the scene where his name is on the radio, he draws his mother's attention to it, not both his parents'. Of course, it's always possible she's the only one in the room for these conversations, but I think everything in this book is planned and has an intention behind it. I do still think there's room to interpret it a different way though. Like you said, Sara, she leaves a lot up to us. (hide spoiler)]

[Kathleen]

Brian, I really appreciate you finding that review! I enjoyed it, and agree also about the connection with Howards End.

I’m so impressed with the sleuthing abilities shown here!! (view spoiler)[I can only agree with what’s been said about Pax. But like Wobbley, I so want him to have survived the war. (hide spoiler)]

About the mice, (view spoiler)[I liked the recurring references to them in the curtains and everywhere, and when I read Rolls sold his best pony “mousetrap” to buy the pearls for Lark, I thought it might mean something, and especially when the book ends with them.

I like Wobbley’s point that they show a repetition of patterns, and Sara’s that they mean the inevitability of life marching on even after death. Thank you both! These ring true and make me think that to the house, people are like the ever-present mice: stalked (or not) by cats, destroyed by traps, but will exist forever within the house. (hide spoiler)]

I think this brings it back to the image at the beginning of time as a river. :-)

[Sara, New School Classics]

I agree, Kathleen. In fact, every detail seems to be fraught with additional meaning, all of which lead us back to the river, to the renewal of life, to the movement of time, to the indestructibility of memory.

[Kathleen]

Sara, you put that so beautifully. Yes!

[Terris]

I just finished! And I loved it! Of course, the "movement of time" element is mesmerizing. But I absolutely loved Godden's talent at description! I felt like I was in that house looking at everything from the curtains, dishes, grocer's list, and bed clothes to the characters' clothing and jewelry, and, of course, the flowers and gardens! It was like being there. I loved that so much :)
And I really like how the story ended.

This is my third book by Godden, and I am looking forward to reading another one of hers in the future. I see that In the House of Brede is set for March next year. I'm going to pencil that one in!

[Sara, New School Classics]

It affected me just as you say, Terri. I felt immersed in it and I have been thinking of it since finishing. Only a really good novel seems to do that with me, the others I forget almost as soon as I read the next book. I'm really into Godden right now. I will try to squeeze in at least one more before year end.

[Terris]

Sara wrote: "It affected me just as you say, Terri. I felt immersed in it and I have been thinking of it since finishing. Only a really good novel seems to do that with me, the others I forget almost as soon as..."

I'll be watching to see which one you choose -- then I'll probably add it to my TBR list!! ;)

[Wobbley]

Terris wrote: "I just finished! And I loved it!"

I'm so glad you found it satisfying, Terris!

[Kathleen]

Terris wrote: "I just finished! And I loved it! Of course, the "movement of time" element is mesmerizing. But I absolutely loved Godden's talent at description! I felt like I was in that house looking at everythi..."

I think you are absolutely right, that Godden's descriptions are what makes this work so well. So glad you enjoyed it, Terris, and I'll be planning on In This House of Brede too!

[Terris]

Kathleen wrote: "Terris wrote: "I just finished! And I loved it! Of course, the "movement of time" element is mesmerizing. But I absolutely loved Godden's talent at description! I felt like I was in that house look..."

Looking forward to it! :)

[Brian E]

I finally did get around to watching the 1948 movie version of A Fugue in Time called “Enchantment” through streaming on Amazon Prime. It wasn’t bad though, as expected, fairly melodramatic.
Some comments:
- They emphasized and added more scenes on the two romances between Roly and Lark and Pax with Grizel. They portrayed it as two parallel love stories at two time periods and constantly flipped between the two time periods, just more obviously and less abruptly than in the book. But I did like one time shift that had Roly walking down the street to the house and morphing into Pax walking down the street to the house..
- They start and end the movie with the house itself narrating and talking about the people living in it. This device worked for me as it let viewers know that the house was a character even though there wasn’t any more such narration in between.
- The acting was fine though, like the movie, melodramatic. David Niven as Roly did well even in old-age makeup. Farley Granger was also fine as Pax. The female romantic leads were weaker. Evelyn Keyes was just OK as Grizel – I never attached to her like I did the book character. Teresa Wright was overly sappy and girly as Lark lacking the elegance that I presumed the book-Lark possessed to make her so enticing to Roly, Pelham and the Marchese.
But Jayne Meadows was great and surprisingly perfect as Selina. Knowing her only as comedian and TV host Steve Allen’s wife and actress in her 1960s and 1970s TV work that IMDb calls “making cameo appearances…usually playing elegant sophisticates,” I did not see how that would fit Selina. But IMDb also reports that during the 1940s and early 50s: “her icy glare and imposing stance frequently made her the perfect manipulating ‘other woman.’” That’s what she brought to this role and it made for a great version of Selina.
- They did change the ending. I can’t say I liked it as it went against what I thought was a theme of the book but it probably was a more cinematic ending.
- There is no mention of Verity. There are only two time periods.

[Sara, New School Classics]

Thanks for sharing this, Brian. I did not see how they could possibly make a movie that would work out of this book. I will now need to check it out. Helps that I am old enough to remember all these actors. 😉

[Brian E]

Sara wrote: "Thanks for sharing this, Brian. I did not see how they could possibly make a movie that would work out of this book. I will now need to check it out. Helps that I am old enough to remember all thes..."

As a fellow old-timer, you also may enjoy seeing Leo G. Carroll as Proutie. Many of us American 70ish folks first got to know him as the head guy on The Man From Uncle and grew up to then see him as Marley's Ghost in the 1938 Reginald Owen version of a Christmas Carol and in 4 Hitchcock movies. I always enjoy him.

[Sara, New School Classics]

Remember him well. One of those actors that showed up constantly, sometimes in small roles. Wallace Berry was another one of those.

[Brian E]

Sara wrote: "Wallace Berry was another one of those."

It's "Wallace BEERY not BERRY."
I diagnose this error to be the result of your having a condition known as "too much Wendell BERRY on the brain."

As a remedy to this brain condition, I prescribe that you say the following 3 times daily until you finish your reread of Jayber Crow:

Wallace BEERY
Wendell BERRY

If the condition does not clear within 2 weeks check in again and I'll prescribe an intense dosage of watching movies like "The Champ" "Grand Hotel" and "Dinner at Eight."

[Sara, New School Classics]

LOL. I stand corrected! My laugh for the day, Brian.