Shirley Hazzard: The Great Fire

Liam

Administrator
Allegedly, The Great Fire (2003) took Hazzard twenty years to write. But if you approach the book expecting another War and Peace, you will be severely disappointed, despite the fact that war and peace certainly are two of the three main themes (the third one being love).

The story takes place in the immediate aftermath of WWII (the "great fire" of the title, though the other fire, the fire of eros, is also omnipresent) and unfolds, for the most part, between colonial Hong Kong anxiously following the developments in mainland China and occupied Japan (post-war, which also means, post-Bomb).

Although the novel does have a single protagonist (so to speak), the Woolf-like approach of the narrator alternates between many different points of view.

Aldred Leith (nationality: British) is the novel's main character as well as its moral compass. Stationed in Japan, he falls in love with the daughter of his Australian superior (the girl is not yet seventeen), and the rest of the novel traces the evolution of that relationship.

Meanwhile, his friend Peter Exley is taking down testimonies of the survivors of Japanese atrocities in Hong Kong. The narrative will shift between these two men, and these two locales, until nearly the end, before the story bifurcates, going west (to England) and the extreme south (New Zealand).

Other than the two friends, there is a rich cast of "supporting" characters (in all four countries, as well as, briefly, Italy, Kenya and Australia), each of whom is utterly unforgettable. Hazzard's eye for detail is unmatched; her descriptions precise and profound at the same time. She brings a lifetime's worth of emotional experience and wisdom to breathe her characters (no matter how "minor") into life, and to wrest their stories from the great conflagration of the war that almost swallows them up.

I had never read anything by Hazzard before and consequently did not know what to expect from this author or her individual style. In the beginning, I must say I had my reservations. The narrative overflows with broken, run-on sentences; psychological asides; etc. The whole thing is suffused with a kind of breathless, nervous energy that we also see in Woolf and, to a lesser extent, Elizabeth Bowen (in fact, I was reminded of the latter's The Heat of the Day while reading The Great Fire).

This broken breathlessness, as I came to see it, takes some getting used to (so please don't give up after two or three chapters). At some point you will realize that the style, idiosyncratic as it is, is perfectly in keeping with the story and the two fuse together almost perfectly in the end: to such an extent, I thought, that you simply could not have told this story any other way.

Although the book is certainly about love (in all its manifestations), I would hesitate to call it, as some reviewers have, a romance. There is plenty of pain and death in its pages. Survival is not guaranteed, and Hazzard keeps you guessing until literally THE LAST CHAPTER as to the resolution of the main narrative thread which, when finally completed, is tied up perfectly.

Although this main narrative thread (involving Aldred Leith and the seventeen year old Helen) is enjoyable, my favorite moments were the small, quieter ones, shared between ordinary people both before and after the war. Hazzard's psychological insight is on full display here: she understands her men and her women completely; her observational powers are unmatched by any other late 20th century novelist writing in English (in my humble opinion).

Finally, there is the great pleasure of language itself: Hazzard's style is polished and precise without ever getting cloyingly poetic.

The Great Fire has been my greatest literary discovery of 2020. Initially I expected I would either re-sell or donate my copy after I was done with it but no, I am keeping it.

I am very certain that I will be returning to this wonderful book, many times over, in the years to come.
 

Johnny

Well-known member
Thank you Liam for a comprehensive and insightful review. I have the book on my bedside table and it’s next on the list ( finishing off The Aunt’s Story by Patrick White first). I am looking forward immensely to reading this and any reviews I have looked up speak in glowing terms. The great news is that all her books seem to be very highly regarded so she is indeed a great discovery. Looking forward to reporting back in a few weeks!
 

tiganeasca

Moderator
Oh dear. Even though I am apparently one of the fortunate (relatively) few whose reading has probably increased as a result of covid, reading more somehow makes it seem like the pile books yet to be read has also grown. So I trudged down to the local library last night (downstairs) and brought up The Great Fire. I'll have you know it had to jump a few hundred books to get to the top of the pile, so you have a lot to answer for, Liam! ?

(P.S. Thank you for the helpful review.)
 
Last edited:

Bartleby

Moderator
Wow! The Woolf comparison definitely made me want to move this one to the top of my tbr now. Thanks for the review :)
 

Liam

Administrator
Thanks, guys, now I'm anxious and afraid that, somehow, Hazzard won't live up to your (by now) great expectations. But for me, as I said previously elsewhere, it was a case of the right reader meeting the right book at the right time!

Another thing that occurred to me: with everything going on in the world right now, all the cruelty and death and political corruption (all three are not exactly explored so much as alluded to every now and then by Hazzard), she reminds you of the only thing that matters (or should matter) in this life: our shared humanity, and the perfect moments of unity that it is possible to experience with another human being even as the world is seemingly falling apart.

Even though there is plenty of sadness and death in this novel, especially in its concluding pages, there is reassurance also (and not of the cheap, Hollywood "happy ending" variety), not to mention the consolation of great art.

As Nabokov puts it at the end of Lolita, "I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art..."
 

tiganeasca

Moderator
I have read Hazzard’s Great Fire and, sadly, do not share Liam’s enthusiasm. First and foremost, I did not think that either Aldred Leith or Helen Driscoll, the two major characters, was particularly well-drawn or fleshed out. I found the story more about the relationship than about two individuals. In addition, I was surprised that I didn’t find either one of them particularly sympathetic, certainly not as much as, for example, as Peter Exley, a major character whom Hazzard essentially drops entirely when his story seems to get in her way. Her sudden and virtually total dispensation with this character I found inexplicable. Just as startling is her dropping of Ben, another central character for at least the first half of the novel. Not only is he essentially dropped, he is disposed of late in the book in a matter of a few quick sentences.

Hazzard spends little time drawing minor characters. Thus, Helen's parents barely register; they occupy one very early scene and then become stick figures, as are virtually all of the minor characters, with a couple noteworthy exceptions. Minor characters can be minor and yet well-drawn, with depth, fullness, and even a modicum of complexity. That simply wasn’t the case with Great Fire.

I thought the last chapters on Leith in England and Helen in NZ were overlong and added little to either the characters or the plot or even to Hazzard’s theme(s). I am also baffled that Hazzard reintroduces a very minor character (Raimonda Mancini) for all of a paragraph. Moreover, the introduction of so many new characters toward the end—Aurora Searle and an entire cast of people in NZ—felt like padding: it was beside the point, unnecessary to the plot or the theme(s), and ultimately more distracting than anything else. These chapters added virtually nothing to the picture we already had of Leith and Helen.

I also found most of the characters to be so self-involved that I honestly had trouble accepting them as real or as sympathetic. Yes, we are all self-involved to a degree. But not so deeply and constantly as the characters here are. Helen also seemed to me to be far too “wise” for her age. Few 18-year-old women talk or think as she does. Hell, few 28-year-olds, for that matter. Why does it bother me? Because, in the end, I found it very challenging to consider her a believable character.

The “tone” of so many conversations also seemed off: most people’s conversations do not wax philosophic all the time. Sometimes, sure. But virtually all the time? Angst, world-weariness, metaphysical speculation are constants here. Moreover, everyone speaks in the same voice: well-spoken, “literate” and not much like “real” people—or maybe I should say not the people I know. (Maybe that should be a lesson to me.) There is virtually no distinguishing one character from another: they all have the same tone, the same literate vocabulary, regardless of background, interests, or position.

All this said, I still think Hazzard tells a (mostly) interesting story and her themes are worthwhile and (mostly) well set out. She is a good writer—though I for one found her stylistic tics (sentences without subjects, sentence fragments) offputting.

Having poked around a bit, I recognize that this book is highly regarded, so take my criticisms with a grain (or more) of salt. No doubt others (maybe most) will disagree. But that's my take. I'll be interested to hear from others here who have read the book.
 
Last edited:

Liam

Administrator
^It's amazing how two different readers, looking at the same thing, can draw such different conclusions: everything that Mr. T (above) considers a major shortcoming I, conversely, loved and appreciated whilst reading the book.

I agree, however, that Peter Exley is a much more "nuanced" character than perhaps any other in the entire novel. He was definitely my favorite.

I would describe Hazzard's style (in this particular case, since I haven't read any of her other books yet) as "essentialist." She cuts right to the essence of things, and much of the everyday "detail of life" is nonexistent in this book, which some readers may find off-putting.

To me, the novel came across as a protracted prose poem (almost) and one wouldn't fault a poem (I don't think) for being too abstract or too philosophical, :)

Mr. T: just out of curiosity, have you ever read anything by Anne Michaels? I'd recommend Fugitive Pieces, to start with; but you get the same thing with Michaels: long, incredibly poetic sentences, meandering narrative, and an almost elliptical structure. The style is deliberately "vague," so I'm just wondering if it is simply not to your tastes, in other words, if you prefer more "solidity," as it were, in your novels?
 
Last edited:

tiganeasca

Moderator
Mr. L: you may be right. I may prefer more "solidity" to my novels. I have not read anything by Ms. Michaels and will happily put her on my list, but I stand by my criticisms. I think you are right, that taste is part of it. But I also think that the things I object to detract from the "quality" of the work in the end. I expect a writer to create a world for me: whether I like or dislike the world is irrelevant, but I do expect to be immersed in that world by whatever techniques he or she wishes to use. I never felt immersed here. The objections I listed, among others, made it very difficult for me to accept the world she created as a believable one. And so in the end, I found that the book didn't particularly succeed as a work of art, notwithstanding her talents and the positive aspects of the book.

She succeeded in creating that world for you because the things I objected to were not objectionable to you. I think that's the crux of our different reactions.
 
Last edited:

Liam

Administrator
I never felt immersed here.
Fair enough, :)

The prose in The Great Fire does feel a bit elemental, and there's also this rushing quality to the story where it speeds from one event to another, one chapter to another, in quick succession.

I have Hazzard's The Evening of the Holiday (first published in 1966 I think) on my shelves, so now I am curious to see how her two styles compare, separated as they are by almost forty years.

PS. I did not just "accidentally" mention Anne Michaels, either. She is primarily a poet and takes a long time to craft her novels (over a decade each); and while I greatly enjoyed Fugitive Pieces, her second book, The Winter Vault, left me a little bit underwhelmed: in fact, I thought exactly what you've described so well above: that I never felt "immersed" in that particular story. But in the end the beauty of her sentences was so amazing that I didn't care, I began to enjoy the novel for the beauty of the language alone!
 
Last edited:

tiganeasca

Moderator
And now it all comes down to Jayan's impression. One positive, one negative review. The entire weight of the WLF community brought to bear on one single, solitary reading of the novel. One tie-breaker. One person who holds the future of the book in his hands.

No pressure :ROFLMAO:

(P.S. The check is written and is just waiting to be mailed....)
 

kpjayan

Reader
Finished the book a day ago. In all, I liked it.

To me, this book is about individuals, connected by fate, trying to 'reconnect' their life, to the world, family, society and importantly to themselves in the aftermath of the great war. Every character in the novel is fragile and a 'injured soul' because of war, either directly or indirectly. That probably explains the 'detachment' one feels while reading in the early pages. The lack of connect, there fore. This displacement ( both physical and emotional ) and their attempt of reconciliation or the failure ( including the attempted suicide, Ben's despatch to California, Driscoll's return to NZ ) was very impressive.

I find the writing also in the similar lines. Minimalist, distanced, half written sentences, 'spaces, gaps and silences' in the narration , which did go eith the mood of the characters. The overall feel is of the defeated and lost. No happiness, weary, struggling and every relationship is on the edge ( The Driscolls , Leith with his parents, Peter). The tone by itself is bleak. I think that essence is captured brilliantly by the writer.

However, the 3rd part left me disappointed. There seems to be too many threads , locations and 'new characters' to bring all this into conclusion. Some of them aren't very convincing ( the Kenya and NZ sequences especially) and did not go well with the first two parts.
 

Liam

Administrator
We probably need a separate thread on Hazzard, but I just wanted to quickly share two things: this recent "overview" piece in Vogue about the arc of her career, and the new (and first!) comprehensive biography of this beautiful and compelling writer.
 
Top