My access to O. Douglas/ Anna Masterton Buchan has been restricted to what’s in the public domain, and so I’d only read three of her books before. The impression I’ve had of her based on these, and seeing other people discuss her (see also), is of a sort of Scottish L.M. Montgomery. Recently, however, I ended up reading The Setons, about a vicar’s daughter and her family, and members of her father’s church in Glasgow. It is exactly what you expect it to be–the Setons are bookish and generous and religious and Not Vulgar; Elizabeth is beautiful and natural and has a nice singing voice; a young man from London visits and is charmed and falls in love. It’s funny, and comforting, and utterly predictable. Then, just as we’re nearing the end, there’s this:
You know, of course, Gentle Reader, that there can be no end to this little chronicle?
You know that when a story begins in 1913, 1914 will follow, and that in that year certainty came to an end, plans ceased to come to fruition—that, in fact, the lives of all of us cracked across.
Personally, I detest tales that end in the air. I like all the strings gathered up tidily in the last chapter and tied neatly into nuptial knots; so I should have liked to be able to tell you that Elizabeth became a “grateful” wife, and that she and Arthur Townshend lived happily and, in fairy-tale parlance, never drank out of an empty cup; and that Stewart Stevenson ceased to think of Elizabeth (whom he never really approved of) and fell in love with Jessie Thomson, and married her one fine day in “Seton’s kirk,” and that all Jessie’s aspirations after refinement and late dinner were amply fulfilled.
But, alas! as I write (May 1917) the guns still boom continuously out there in France, and there is scarce a rift to be seen in the war-clouds that obscure the day.
The Setons is Douglas/Buchan’s second novel, and she’ll go on, after the war, to write more of the sort of books I associate her with, their strings “gathered up tidily” and happily (in nuptial knots)–reading her years later and out of order, as I’m doing, imposes a false chronology, and perhaps makes this departure from a pattern she hasn’t even set yet seem a bigger deal than it is. And the book will go on to in some measure gather up those strings in any case–characters we’ve known and liked are reported on, and some of them are reported dead. There’s some form of closure, because there has to be, even if the closing image of the book is a family praying before sending another young man off to war.
Chronology feels significant here– if that “You know, Gentle Reader” is addressed to me, then yes I do know. A century later not only am I aware of the dates of the war, but I’m used to reading fiction that treats the period leading up to it as the last golden summer, I’m used to foreshadowing; from the moment a character in The Setons casually reveals that he’s living in the winter of 1913 I’m on my guard. But I also know when the war ends–my version of this story isn’t “in the air”. The gentle readers of 1917 may not yet be used to having the summer of three years ago turned into myth, or to reading clues to it into their literature; their relationship to the thing that is actually happening to/around them is probably very different. A few years ago I wrote of Penny Plain that the effects of the war were all over the book. But that book too is written after the war. In The Setons the war isn’t merely a tragic event but a genuine shock that tears through the book itself. We know what sort of book this is–until it isn’t. In 1917, with scarce a rift to be seen in the war-clouds etc., the shape of this narrative is impossible. At particular moments, particular sorts of stories become unthinkable.
We know this, we all did a Modernism module at some point. I don’t know, though, that I’ve ever felt it this cataclysmic within the text. I don’t know what I make of the fact that by 1920 (when Penny Plain is written) for Douglas this story has become possible again, and I don’t know if it’s possible to find comfort in that fact.