Assignment 2 : Existentialism, Denialism, and Cowardice in ‘The Only Story’ : 22414 - Paper 207 : Contemporary Literatures in English

• Name : Nirav Lalitbhai Amreliya

• Batch : M.A. Sem. 4 (2021-2023)

• Enrollment N/o. : 4069206420210002

• Roll N/o. : 18

• Subject Code & Paper N/o. : 22414 - Paper 207 : Contemporary Literatures in English

• Email Address : niramreliyaunofficial@gmail.com

• Submitted to : Smt. S. B. Gardi Department of English – Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University – Bhavnagar – 364001

• Date of Submission : 30th March, 2023

Existentialism, Denialism, and Cowardice in ‘The Only Story’

Introduction : Julian Barnes's 'The Only Story' (2018) has masterfully presented the philosophy of Love with the finest art to its depiction of the characters Paul Roberts and Susan Macleod. The novel is having such an amount of rich conflicts that remain counter-supplements to each other if one particular pair of nuantic paradoxical conflicts that is also has its place in thematic study of the novel. The novel has also magnificent deal of reality imbued with Post-Structuralist tools of narration and characterization. Along with the question of what is love in fact, other philosophical ideas such as Existentialism, Absurdism, and Denialism are also dealt with its truest epistemological values in the novel by the author sir Julian Barnes.

Love : Complacency or Cowardice? :

The story begins with the easiest at the same time most difficult question of Love :

'Would you rather love the more, and suffer the more; or love the less, and suffer the less? That is, I think, finally, the only real question. You may point out – correctly – that it isn’t a real question. Because we don’t have the choice. If we had the choice, then there would be a question. But we don’t, so there isn’t. Who can control how much they love? If you can control it, then it isn’t love. I don’t know what you call it instead, but it isn’t love.'

The rhetoric question about Love has set to demystify the general notion that Love is something that happens only between a lad and a damsel with implied sexual urge in natural manner, but here the degree of Love is stated as that if it can be measured, then it is not Love but something else, perhaps it is commerce that two ones do for satisfying each other's need - be it of physical, sexual, mental, emotional, societal, and financial.

If deeply analysed, the Love which Paul Roberts feels here will seem just his youthful emotional fluctuations as his is the love which is of romantic ramblings which fails to stand straight when the time of taking Susan's responsibility comes to him when she starts becoming mad and zombiefied. The third part titled as 'Three' has it as follows :

'You are home one evening when the phone goes. It is one of the lodgers.

‘I think you’d better come round. We’ve had the police. With guns.’

You repeat the words to Anna, then run for your car. In Henry Road there is an ambulance outside the house, its blue light revolving, its doors open. You park, walk across, and there she is, in a wheelchair facing out towards the street, with a broad bandage around her forehead which has pushed her hair up into a Struwwelpeter shock. Her expression, as often when a sudden crisis has worked itself out, is one of slightly amused calm. She surveys the street, the ambulance men fixing the wheelchair in place, and your own arrival, as if from a throne. The blue light revolves against the steadier sodium orange. It is real and unreal at the same time; filmic, phantasmagoric.

Then the chair slowly rises on its hoist, and as the ambulance doors are about

to be closed, she lifts her hand in a pontifical blessing. You ask the ambulance men where they are taking her and follow in your car. When you get to the A&E department, they are already taking preliminary details.

‘I’m her next of kin,’ you say.

‘Son?’ they ask. You nearly agree, for speed, but they might query the

difference of surname. So, once again, you are her nephew.

‘He’s not really my nephew,’ she says. ‘I could tell you a thing or two about this young man.’

You look at the doctor, lying to him with a slight frown and a tiny movement

of the head. You collude in the notion that Susan is temporarily off among the

nutters.

‘Ask him about the tennis club,’ she says.

‘We’ll come to that, Mrs Macleod. ‘But first …’

And so the process continues. They will keep her in overnight, perhaps run a

test or two. It may just be shock. They will call you when they are ready to release her. The ambulance men have said it was just a cut, but as it was on the forehead there was a lot of blood. It may need a stitch or two, maybe not.'

Here the base of superficial Love which Paul used to bragg off in his early days is being stumbled down to his fear of what people of Henry Road where the couple lives would think of him and especially about his relationship with an aged woman, this is what makes him frightened and thus he tries to hush the words by semi-mad Susan in order to prevent himself from being an object of public loathing; here Paul fails in Love as he prefers himself over his responsibility towards Susan in a time when she really needs him, thus we can say that Paul fails in Love as his Love towards Susan Macleod is proven to be of cowardice.

Another reference of his dreamy Love can be seen when he recounts on how he used to fantasize his love-story with Susan Macleod in the same part, he compares :

Paul (Himself) -> Valiant Knight

Susan Macleod -> Pretty Maiden

Gordon Macleod -> Wicked Guardian

This sequence of "rescue fantasy" also reveals the immature conception of Love being brewed in Paul's early youthful mind which illusioned his logic and the sense of plausibility ultimately harming his life partially, and Susan's life entirely :

'He had read, some years before, that a common psychological trope in men’s

attitude to women was the ‘rescue fantasy’. Perhaps it stirred in them memories of fairy tales in which valiant knights came across pretty maidens locked in towers by wicked guardians. Or those classical myths in which other maidens – usually naked – were chained to rocks for the sole purpose of being rescued by dauntless warriors. Who usually discovered a convenient sea serpent or dragon which had to be eliminated first.'

This is how Paul's dullardness makes him emerge as a failure in Love and a realistic human hero as well as unreliable narrator on ground of Post-Structuralism as far as memory narration is concerned in the novel.

Existential Creed & Significance of 'Crossword' as a Symbol :

The novel being imbued with the Post-Modernist concept of Absurdism, Surrealism, and other atheist questions which all find its roots in sir Friedrich Nietzsche's idea of Existentialism. The overwhelming connection is made to the game of crosswords in the novel by the author as he describes :

'Everyone in the Village, every grown-up – or rather, every middle-aged person –

seemed to do crosswords: my parents, their friends, Joan, Gordon Macleod.

Everyone apart from Susan. They did either The Times or the Telegraph; though Joan had those books of hers to fall back on while waiting for the next newspaper. I regarded this traditional British activity with some snootiness. I

was keen in those days to find hidden motives – preferably involving hypocrisy – behind the obvious ones. Clearly, this supposedly harmless pastime was about more than solving cryptic clues and filling in the answers. My analysis identified the following elements: 1) the desire to reduce the chaos of the universe to a small, comprehensible grid of black-and-white squares; 2) the underlying belief that everything in life could, in the end, be solved; 3) the confirmation that existence was essentially a ludic activity; and 4) the hope that this activity would keep at bay the existential pain of our brief sublunary transit from birth to death. That seemed to cover it!'

Further he makes some additions to this recapitulation :

'Further addition: 1a) a successful means of taking your mind off the question of love, which is all that counts in the world. 2b) the further belief that once you have solved something in life, you will be able to solve it again, and the solution will be exactly the same the second time around, thus offering assurance that you have reached a pitch of maturity and wisdom. 3b) false confirmation that you are more intelligent than some give you credit for. Correction to 4). To begin: ‘the hope that this arse-bendingly boring activity

would keep …’'

The absurd way of living the meaningless life and just to fill the gap people did crosswords as an activity for pleasure or pastime, this is how the spirit of Absurdism is captured through the reasonable use of Crosswords as a striking symbol to the vast aegis of Existentialism. As sir Jacques Derrida has also said that “language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique.”

Denialism & Sit-Com : The Medium to Overlook Reality :

Let us first have the definition of the term 'Denialism' :

According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Language :

'the practice of denying the existence, truth, or validity of something despite proof or strong evidence that it is real, true, or valid.'

(i) Denialism in Paul Roberts :

The theme of Denialism is captured in Paul's dealings when he denies into believing that Susan is also a drunkard as having been proven by his friend Eric who lives as a lodger in their new house at Henry Road in London. The dialogue between Paul and Eric reveals Susan's furtive drunkardness upon which Paul denies to believe the obvious facts which ultimately turns out to be true :

'A few months passed. One evening, after Susan had gone to bed, Eric said,

‘Don’t like to mention this …’

‘Yes?’ He looked embarrassed, which was unlike Eric.

‘… but the thing is, Susan’s been nicking my whisky.’

‘Your whisky? She doesn’t even drink whisky.’

‘Well, it’s her, or you, or the poltergeist.’

‘You’re sure?’

‘I put a mark on the bottle.’

‘How long’s this been going on?’

‘A few weeks. Maybe months?’

‘Months? Why didn’t you tell me?’

‘Wanted to make sure. And she changed her tactics.’

‘How do you mean?’

‘Well, at some point she must have noticed that there was a mark on the

bottle. She’d have her nip or glug or however much it was, and then fill the

bottle back up to the mark with water.’

‘That’s clever.’

‘No, it’s standard. Banal, even. My dad used to do that when my mum was

trying to get him to stop.’

‘Oh.’ I was disappointed. I wanted Susan always to be as entirely original as she still appeared to me.

‘So I did the logical thing. I stopped drinking from the bottle myself. She’d

come up, have a swig, fill up to the pencil mark with water. I let it run and run, until I could see the colour of the whisky fading. Eventually, to confirm it, I had a glass myself. One part whisky to about fifteen of water would be my guess.’

He seems to identify his cowardice of leaving Susan if he asks her about whether she is a drunkard or not :

'You notice there are times when she seems, not squiffy, but out of focus. Not

bleary of face, but bleary of mind. Then, by chance, you notice her swallowing a

pill.

‘Headache?’

‘No,’ she replies. She is in one of those moods – lucid, unself-pitying, yet

somehow beaten-down – which bend your heart painfully. She comes and sits on the edge of the bed.

‘I went to the doctor. I explained what had happened. I explained that I’d been

feeling depressed. He gave me some cheering-up pills.’

‘I’m sorry you need them. I must be letting you down.’

‘It’s not you, Paul. And it’s not fair on you either. But I think if I can get through the … adjustment, then it’ll get better.’

‘Did you tell him you were drinking a bit too much?’

‘He didn’t ask about that.’

‘That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have told him.’

‘We’re not going to quarrel about this, are we?’

‘No. We’re not going to quarrel. Ever.’

‘Then it’ll all come out right. You’ll see.’

Thinking about this conversation later, you begin to understand – for the first

time, really – that she has more to lose than you. Much more. You are leaving

behind a past, much of which you are happy to let go. You believed, and still

believe as deeply, that love is the only thing that counts; that it makes up for

everything; that if you and she get it right, everything will fall into place. You

realize that what she has left behind – even her relationship with Gordon

Macleod – is more complicated than you had assumed. You thought chunks

could be cleanly amputated from a life without pain or complication. You realize that, if she had seemed isolated in the Village when you first met her, you have made her more isolated by taking her away.

All this means that you must redouble your commitment to her. You must get

through this tricky patch, and then things will become clearer, better. She

believes that, and so you must believe it too.'

This wimpishness in Paul's behaviour arose from the fear of leaving Susan if he inquires if she drinks liquor or not, this also indicates the uneasiness and short-temperedness of Susan Macleod as she is such a person who cannot be asked a question for clarification, or perhaps Paul being unreliable narrator might have depicted her in this way so that he can hide the banal things he might have done to Susan which led her down to drink liquor, this quasi-imputation is what holds mystery into the various layers of the novel.

(ii) Denialism in People :

There we find that people of general minds living in any part of the world which are represented by the family of Paul Roberts consisting of his parents are in mode of deliberate denialism to the outside happening and were cold towards the satires made on anything which they were at fault in, this is how brilliantly depicted by the author in the novel which makes it one of its own kind :

'My parents enjoyed television sit-coms, but were made uneasy by satire. You couldn’t buy Private Eye in the Village, but I would bring it back from university and leave it provocatively around the house. I remember one issue whose cover had a floppy 33 rpm disc loosely attached to it. Peeling off the record revealed the photo of a man sitting on the lavatory, trousers and pants round his ankles, shirt-tails keeping him decent. On to the neck of this anonymous squatter was montaged the head of the Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, with a bubble coming out of his mouth saying, ‘Put that record

back at once!’ I found it supremely funny, and showed it to my mother; she

judged it stupid and puerile. Then I showed it to Susan, who was overcome with laughter. So that was everything decided, in one go: me, my mother, Susan and politics.'

How insularity was seeped into the minds and thus behaviour of the people lived during the age about the most obvious facts and realities of life which due to their fear were not accepting them and moreover whenever whoever tried to break this bridge, they protested it with all their strength, as heavy in numbers, fools have always won the day and lost in historical significance, many such examples are there such as Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, etc. and many having 'charismatic personae' of our times are treading the way once trodden and left by such inhuman warmonger wankers. The reference of Winston Churchill also cones which also alludes to the World War eras as Churchill was the Prime Minister of England (1940 - 1945) during the Second World War (1939 - 1945) as follows :

'I wonder if she is talking about the sham of respectability, the sham of marriage, the sham of suburbia, or … but she carries on.

‘Winston Churchill, did I tell you about seeing him?’

‘You mean, you went to Number Ten?’

‘Silly, no. I saw him in a back street in Aylesbury. What was I doing there? Not that it matters. He was sitting in the rear seat of an open-topped car. And his face was all covered in make-up. Red lips, bright pink face. He looked bizarre.’

‘You’re sure it was Churchill? I didn’t realize he was …’

‘… one of them? No, it’s nothing like that, Paul, You see, they were waiting

to drive him through the city centre – it was after we won the war, or maybe it

was the General Election, and he was made up for the cameras. Pathé News and all that.’

‘How weird.’

‘It was. So quite a few people saw this strange painted mannequin in the flesh,

but far more saw him on the newsreels, when he looked like they expected him

to.’

I think about this for a while. It strikes me as a comic incident, rather than a

general principle of life. Anyway, my interests are elsewhere.

‘But you’re what you look like, aren’t you? You’re exactly what you look

like?’

She kisses me. ‘I hope so, my fine and feathered friend. I hope so for both our

sakes.’'

The aforementioned dialogue signifies the "discourse time" - as discussed by sir Gérard Genette - of the novel which is of early and middle twentieth century. This relates to its civilian response as the people were terrified to speak against the militant government so that they drifted away from politics to the pleasure which is a natural trait of any animal, in humans, it is cowardly and heinous if seen from the civilized point of view towards looking at the world of life being lived in double-standards.

Conclusion : The novel 'The Only Story' has within itself the manifold discursive themes which concern subtle kinds of aspects related to human relationship, human behavioural pattern, nuantic differences of psyche and psychological dynamics, denialistic indifference to reality, and most importantly, the ways of justifying one's own committed mistakes and impute them on others so that to emerge as a hero from past, but it is also wrong as the reality is that we emerge as anti-hero from our past deeds, having said that we must be better than our earlier self, that is the answer.

• (Word Count : 3044)

Works Cited :

Barnes, Julian. The Only Story. J. Cape, 2018.

Derrida, Jacques. Jacques Derrida, “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the ... California State University, Dominguez Hills, http://www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f13/drrdassp.pdf.