Reader Ramblings: LMB, LRK, DLS and Thematic Dissatisfaction

[ase]

kate_nepveu read the first four Russell/Holmes novels recently and while discussing A Monstrous Regiment of Women says, "not only does it set up false choices for Russell, it then deliberately takes them away from her!" She also mentions Gaudy Night. ("[S]uffers badly from wanting to be Gaudy Night and failing miserably." Ouch.) The juxtaposition of those two comments made my brain leap universes and think about Ekaterin's choices, particularly that question about her aunt the Professora.

She had a top place in her profession - might she have had a place at the top? She had three children - might she have had six?
-Komarr, ch 17; pg242 American HC

The quote shoots home to my dissatisfaction with both books: there's a common theme of romance being part of a larger character concern or area the character is reluctant to deal with. The romance complications are solved by marriage, and by authorial fiat the associated larger concerns are swept into that resolution. Only by my reading of the story, those other problems aren't, and linger on, thematically unresolved, at the novel's close.

In Ekaterin's case, a bunch of self-doubt and questions about career versus children are swept under the rug when she and Miles become engaged, which is problematic because a bunch of those questions rose out of her experience with her first marriage. Her earlier rejection of marriage ever isn't necessarily the right answer, but agreeing to jump back into the intstitution less than a year after her first husband's death doesn't seem plausible. The dissolution of Ekaterin's fears into premarital excitement works in the first frission of ACC, but pushes the really hard questions aside. If LMB ever writes another Vorkosigan book, some of those questions about family and responsibility to yourself vs. responsibility to others may crop up again if (when) Aral dies, Miles assumes the Countship, and Ekaterin becomes Countess Vorkosigan, which Simon Illyan pointed out (in ACC) is a job in itself.

Mary Russell faces some of that same dynamic push-pull in Monstrous Regiment, usually in more than one direction. Margery Childe and Sherlock Holmes both make demands on her time in London as she assumes her majority and tries to undertake what she considers her "real" work: a theological presentation at Oxford. It's tempting to try to spin an Oxford v. London argument, but a lot of Mary's options revolve around London v. London, or more accurately the attractions of Childe, Holmes and the possibilities they represent. The academic and theological possibilities of Oxford are present, but tend to take a back seat to the emotional questions found in London. The main question in the London v. Oxford debate might be the nature of Mary's relationship with God ("cold", Margery says in a really cool and dramatic speech) which ties into the emotion debate that's part of the Childe/Holmes question. Ultimately, the deck's a bit stacked in the direction of Holmes and against both Oxford and Childe (whose name might be an indicator of authorial intent, since Monstrous Regiment is fairly explicitly a story about maturity), so the questions raised about emotion and the value of Mary's work in Oxford are swept aside for the happy romantic ending.

(Tangent: is it just me, or does Mary's academic career spend a lot of time sidelined in the course of the series? Work on an academic book is interrupted by A Letter of Mary, and the series spends that novel and the next four dashing from case to work-interrupting case. She takes it awfully well, on the whole.)

Nepveu also asks in her post, "I'm starting to wonder if this is a subgenre, books written in obvious tribute to Gaudy Night." It makes me wonder how much of Ekaterin Vorsoisson's and Mary Russell's character arcs were inspired by GN, and whether the resolutions I found so incomplete might be an inadvertent effect of the authors echoing GN's plot and some of its themes, but changing things around enough that the conclusion of the romance doesn't tie things up as neatly as Sayers did in GN. (If she really does resolve things that well in GN - I read it once, when I was 15 or 16, it was my first Sayers, and I know I missed things left, right and center. Currently, I can scarcely remember what happened in the story.)

Comments

[hedda62.livejournal.com]

Yes - I would accept Ekaterin's decision (which, after all, was the proper conclusion of a book set up explicitly to be a romance novel/comedy of manners) better if the next book in the series had indicated more of the realities of the marriage - I think we have some hint of concerns in the short story, but I'd really like to see a post-honeymoon book where the real problems were addressed. On the other hand, there's no real career vs. marriage/children dilemma, because Ekaterin is already a mother and, at least to begin with, marrying Miles does not limit her career potential. However, it's clear she's already thinking in terms of being Countess Vorkosigan instead of Barrayar's best landscape designer (or combining the two somehow?).

Mary does seem to sublimate her academic career with very little grumbling, but it's also true that she signed on as Holmes's partner in detection before there was a hint of them marrying. Of course, if they hadn't got married, it would have been a lot easier for her to back out of the detecting business.

As far as tributes to Gaudy Night go, I wouldn't say GN provided definitive answers to all these questions, so there's no reason not to explore them further. (Probably I say this rather defensively since the female protagonist of my series is a grad student who gives up academics for a well-paying job in the time travel biz, with romance sidelights.)

[ase.livejournal.com]

However, it's clear she's already thinking in terms of being Countess Vorkosigan instead of Barrayar's best landscape designer (or combining the two somehow?).

Well, she has an entire District to work with... why not make part of it a senior project, or part of her graduate work?

As far as tributes to Gaudy Night go, I wouldn't say GN provided definitive answers to all these questions, so there's no reason not to explore them further. (Probably I say this rather defensively since the female protagonist of my series is a grad student who gives up academics for a well-paying job in the time travel biz, with romance sidelights.)

I agree with you about GN not being the final word on the topic. That sort of marriage/career/life choice question is a value call, so there really isn't one "right" answer. What works for Harriet Vane isn't necessarily right for Ekaterin Vorsoisson, or for your Olivia. And I may be totally off base about GN's influence in the area; I doubt it's the first novel to show female characters finding satisfaction, fulfillment and the completion of an emotional arc in marriage. But in the examples I'm grumbling about, marriage doesn't resolve the themes and questions raised, yet the narrative rolls on past that "yes, I'll marry you" moment as if they have been. Getting out of academia can be a very sensible career choice, especially if the private sector pays better and lets you pursue something closer to your Dream Job. It's the way that characters arrive at that decision that drives me slightly batty.

Not sure that actually clarified anything, or if I'm just repeating myself. But I'm enjoying reviewing the themes of books that I've liked and been annoyed by, particularly Monstrous Regiment. It's interesting to notice that the intersection of the Oxford/theology/academic and London/detective/emotional stuff is at Margery Childe and the New Church of God. And ultimately, Margery winds up fairly discredited, which seemed to say, "don't mix theology and emotion"... and which seemed a lot more profound when I started typing this paragraph, darnit.

[hedda62.livejournal.com]

But in the examples I'm grumbling about, marriage doesn't resolve the themes and questions raised, yet the narrative rolls on past that "yes, I'll marry you" moment as if they have been.

The Peter/Harriet marriage works as a resolution on two levels, I guess: it works because they love each other, and it works because Peter is not going to force Harriet to give up the work that fulfills her. (Of course, it is awfully convenient work, because she can do it anywhere, and Peter's money certainly doesn't hurt.) But it does take another book to resolve some of the emotional difficulties they face in the marriage.

I get the sense that the personality types Holmes and Russell represent are supposed to attach less importance to the romantic fulfillment of marriage, in which case I think LRK let the ending of Monstrous Regiment get away from her and set up unreasonable expectations for the rest of the series. It almost seems like the convenience of Holmes and Russell being able to live in the same house is equivalent to the convenience of Harriet being able to type her novels anywhere - but in that case I'd like to see some passion about some aspect of Mary's work, whether it's academic or detecting or marital, and perhaps some more conflict.

Maybe that's what's missing from the Miles/Ekaterin or Ekaterin/work pairings as well? It all seems too tidy?

[ase.livejournal.com]

but in that case I'd like to see some passion about some aspect of Mary's work, whether it's academic or detecting or marital, and perhaps some more conflict.

That's my stumbling block as well - LRK's Holmes canonically doesn't see the point of devoting a lifetime of study to theology, but there's remarkably little grumbling about wasting one's time when Mary could be doing something more useful... (from his point of view, of course.)

Maybe that's what's missing from the Miles/Ekaterin or Ekaterin/work pairings as well? It all seems too tidy?

Miles/Ekaterin is a very tidy balancing of personalities in a way I appreciate, but there's a lack of trailing ends tripping up the protagonists. That seems too tidy, to my eye.