A HANDFUL OF DUST by Evelyn Waugh - entertaining, flawed upper class and savages too

Our discussion by 15 attendees of the Montrose Great Books book club at Freed-Montrose Library on Thursday, July 3rd was interesting and helpful for me in understanding A HANDFUL OF DUST by Evelyn Waugh but as sometimes happens, several attendees including myself felt as the discussion came to a close, we still had missed something especially since this book has a very good reputation and is on all the "main lists" of important books (for whatever that is worth).

One attendee mentioned the allusion to the poem by T.S. Eliot titled THE WASTE LAND from which the title comes. I think a familiarity with THE WASTE LAND would have helped  illuminate the story to a much greater degree than I was able to grasp.

Carol led the discussion with a question about the main protagonist, Tony Last. She said she noticed that many of the names of the characters seemed to be indicative of the character's interests or personality and so asked if we thought Tony's name was supposed to mean something more than just a name.

The first response referred to the fact that he had no progeny because his son died and therefore he would be the last in his line of "Last's".  But also, it indicated he was the "last of a kind".  The "kind" here being someone who belongs to the upper class, is very very traditional, considers his homestead sacred and something that must be maintained for his namesake even if it causes him financial difficulties.  He was someone who hires and maintains a large number of servants and employees and considers them his reponsibility, i.e. he doesn't ever economize and lay some of them off in order to save money because he would be seriously affecting there financial security.  He is someone who goes to church very regularly because that is what he is supposed to do, even if he isn't really very religious as shown by his response to the vicar's visit when his son died.  He was someone who at least at first tried to do the right thing by his wife by publicly claiming the guilt in the divorce even though it was she who wanted the divorce.

Though Tony is characterized as a decent guy, he says about himself that he wasn't "the cleverest of men".  His taste was mediocre as reflected in his love of his very big house that was written up in the local guide book as being "devoid of interest". Someone in our discussion expressed the opinion that all of the male characters in the book were mediocre. One of the members of our discussion suggested that they all were emasculated.  Seems that Tony fared just as poorly among the savages at home such as Brenda and Mrs. Beaver as he did among the savages abroad when he became ill with jungle fever as he followed Dr. Messenger seeking a mythical lost city and ultimately becoming imprisoned by Dr. Todd and destined to read Dickens for the rest of his life.

Tony's wife, Brenda is definitely not as likable as Tony according to most participants in our discussion. Some thought she was "flaky" especially given her choice of men to have an affair with such as John Beaver, a man who was younger, poorer and much less decent than Tony.  Though many in our discussion were sympathetic with her boredom living in the country, her insensitive response when her child died seemed to cause most of us to think ill of her.  We still weren't too sympathetic even when later she is struggling financially after Tony leaves on his trip and after John Beaver leaves her and she hasn't enough money to eat (because she can't get her divorce from Tony and the big alimony payment that Beaver says they need.).   

We discussed the fact that the final chapter had been a previously published short story and apparently a new alternative final chapter had to be written for American publishers.  The alternative ending was universally disliked by those of us who had read it.  It completely changed the nature of the book and gave it a much happier ending where Tony and Brenda are actually re-united instead of the original version where Tony goes on a trip, becomes ill in the jungle, is held hostage and everyone at home believes him to be dead.  The alternative ending has Tony becoming unfaithful to his wife after they reunite but the effect is very light compared to the horror of the original final chapter. Most of us seemed to feel the horror of the original final chapter was the best part of the book.  

Several of the members in the discussion indicated that they found the book quite funny. Examples of this include the seaside visit to Brighton by Tony when he tried to simulate an affair and where he has breakfast with the young child of the woman he is supposed to be having the affair with, the visit by Tony and Jock to the restaurant where they pay women to dance, the Galihad room in Tony's mansion which is so uncomfortable, and some of the absurd characters Brenda meets at the parties. The humor wasn't something that some of us had thought much of.  As one member pointed out,  Americans are not always good at picking up on some of the hilarious aspects of British humor and now as I write this, I'm inclined to agree that that probably applies here (and reminds me of a discussion here at Montrose library we had not so long ago where several of us had issues with the play by Pinter titled THE HOMECOMING because we didn't fully grasp the humor.)

The fact that the rooms in Tony's mansion are named after characters in a work by Tennyson was mentioned as well as the allusion to Tony as King Arthur, Brenda as Guinevere, and Beaver as her lover, Lancelot.  And the fact that Tony becomes an explorer (even if it is rather absurd) is an allusion to King Arthur's search for the Holy Grail.

We also discussed the fact that there were several characters that Waugh develops to some degree but then drops before it seems that they are allowed to make any significant contribution to the main story.  Such characters included Ben, the stable hand (who helped Tony's son, John Andrew with his horse),  Mrs. Rattery (the American pilot), and Pricess Abdul Akbur (who thought she was responsble for the death of John Andrew).  I think these characters were probably allusions or at the very least symbols that weren't obvious to us.  

One wonders how many allusions included by the author might have been picked up by someone more familiar with THE WASTE LAND, or with the British literary world of the 20's or 30's, or familiar with different segments of the British class structure that was crumbling during the 20's, or familiar  with the literary world during Dickens time or with British history or with mythology or Biblical references, etc.  Though I include myself among those who lack much familiarity with these elements,  I still felt it was a good story and that the writing was of very good quality, maybe not a "Great Book" IMO but still enjoyable reading. 

Now as I write this after the discussion, I wonder if the structure of this story isn't a bit like many of Shakespeare's works where a story for the common masses is written within a much larger story that more erudite readers are able to grasp.  Count me as one of the commoners, I guess.

I found this quote from Waugh on how the novel came to be written.  I think it gives a good high level summary:
   "I had just written a short story about a man trapped in the jungle, ending his days reading Dickens aloud. [...] eventually the thing grew into a study of other sorts of savages at home and the civilized man's helpless plight among them."

Looking forward to next month's discussion of THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER by Carson McCullers on August 7th at 6pm at Freed Montrose Library in Houston Tx.  See http://www.houstonbookclubs.org/Montrose/  for more info.