Someone at a Distance

At one point during the Lincoln Forum, Frank Williams, Chief Justice of the Rhode Island State Court and Chair of the Lincoln Forum made the comment that decisions have consequences and that frequently once a decision is made, there is no going back. I think that is one of the themes of "Someone at a Distance," a novel by Dorothy Whipple that I finished last night. This is another book that was suggested to me by Elaine at Random Jottings - Elaine and her blog have introduced to me to an extraordinary number of writers and books that I had never heard of before. One of the pluses about Dorothy Whipple is that unlike Harriet Martineau ("Deerbook,"), Whipple wrote other novels so there is more to look look forward to reading.

"Someone at a Distance" is the story of the North family, Ellen and Avery and their children Hugh and Anne. They live an almost Eden like existence in the a country town within community distance of London. That existence is destroyed when they unwittingly invite a serpent (Whipple's word not mine) into their midst in the person of Louise, a young French woman with literally no redeeming qualities. Louise sets out to seduce Avery which destroys all of the family relationships.

The story has plenty of drama that kept me reading on to find out what happens at the end. Supposedly Whipple's strength was characters, not plot and certainly the characters in "Someone" are well drawn, not just the main characters, but a full range of people both in England and in France. A range that is almost Shakepeare like in its breadth and depth. As noted earlier at one level, "Someone" is a book about decisions and their consequences, but also about how things are inter-related, something that Whipple points out in the book. Apparently a big part of Louise's motivation for destruction is based upon her rejection by an upper class lover in the town she grew up in. Certainly it is a clear lesson about the importance of thinking about possible consequences because some decisions even if taken on a whim can be irrevocable.

It is, however, the latter issue - the irreversibility of such actions that is another level of the story. As Whipple makes clear throughout the book both Ellen and Avery's reaction to Avery's decision are mistaken - they put interpretation on what that action means that are simply incorrect. It raises the question of whether things would have worked out the same if there had at least been some open communication right after the event instead of reactions based upon interpretation rather than direct communication.

The issue I think is whether a relationship based upon mutual love can survive stupid decisions and stupid mistakes. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians wrote that love "bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." If that is true, and certainly that is something we want to believe, then the question is can mutual love allow an incident that is clearly wrong and hurtful to be ultimately destructive. This is not in anyway suggesting a "turn the other cheek" approach, but rather for a relationship based in shared love to figure out a way to "endure all things." This theme and question is there in "Someone," somewhat under the surface, but there none the less and ultimately it plays an important part in the novel's conclusion - a conclusion that is not in any way "an all ends well" type of conclusion.

So thanks again to Elaine for suggesting Dorothy Whipple and "Someone at a Distance." I look forward to reading more of her works as well as so many other books that I have learned about through Elaine.