![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
'The Birthday Boys' is Beryl Bainbridge’s fictionalised account of Scott’s fateful trip to the South Pole. In case you don’t know everybody dies – ooops, spoilers.The team assemble and head off by boat for the Antarctic on the Terra Nova Expedition. The book begins narrated by Taff Evans, one of the labour/general sailor contingent of the crew (who will be the one lower class member of the team selected for the final trek to the Pole) and then switches to a different member of the final trek group in each new section, ending with Oates chapter.
My main dislikes were (diving right in here with the negative it seems):
In Taff’s narrative there’s a clever bit where he reflects on the general sailors and some of the other members of the expedition crew, in order to organically allow the reader to understand who is on board. I found that really helpful, but in later sections new characters who you’ve never heard of are introduced with little background detail (I know, I checked back through the section they were introduced and through Taff’s section to see just when they were introduced). Confusing and threw me out of the story, because there were always characters I couldn’t place.
Some of the main characters (Edward Wilson, or Bill, especially) exhibit a lot of class prejudice. I understand that these characters are representatives of real life characters who probably were prejudiced against lower classes, but I find myself prejudiced against characters that have problems with the lower classes (it’s actually harder for me to get over than historical characters who are prejudiced against women) if the book makes it clear that the reader is supposed to like them. I found Bill really unlikeable because of my own sensibilities. It is very dull to spend time with a man that you dislike so much when everyone else in the book clearly adores him.
Scott’s section reflects Scott not as the hero of the ages, but the way modern biographers now see him. He’s flawed, stubborn, unprepared and just plain wrong about the best way to travel. He’s the man who caused the failure of his expedition and the party. The trouble with Bainbridge’s portrayal of these flaws in his own section is that it’s not very subtle, he is forever thinking about how he doesn’t trust dogs and is glad they brought the ponies, or how you need to be firm when you’re in command. I think that his narrative is supposed to work in the same way as Taff Evans does, an unreliable narrator who is unable to see the faults in themselves talks and then the other characters offer correctives and troubling points of disagreement for the reader to follow along with. The trouble is I already knew that Scott was wrong and pigheaded, so the surprise that’s present when characters correct Taff Evans’ version of certain events isn’t there when someone like Oates explains how Scott’s narrative fails to be representative. Having previous knowledge of Scott’s character makes Bainbridge’s allusions seem obvious and again kind of dull.
And I’m not saying the ending isn’t horrifying. It is, even though you know what’s going to happen. I was not prepared for the sudden ratchet of horror that comes during their return trek after having failed to reach the Pole first. It is not all ‘I may be gone some time’ stoicism; it’s a hand that no longer looks like a hand and reader horror. At the same time all the horror and emotion the end of the final section conjured up didn’t make up for the lack of connection that I felt after I stopped reading Taff’s section and found out what an unreliable narrator he was.
I’m feeling in kind of a cranky mood about this book to be honest. Let’s just say this one wasn’t for me shall we and move on.
