NYSSD: "On the Streets"

I wasn't sure whether "On the Streets" was supposed to take place in England or Ireland, but my guess is England because there probably aren't too many pubs called "the Queen's Regiment" in Ireland these days. If that's the case, then it fits into a pattern I've noticed in Trevor's work: his "English stories" often involve characters who are seriously demented, if not downright psychopaths -- like Arthurs, and the serial murderer in the novel Felicia's Journey -- while the characters in his "Irish stories" are usually just sad, ordinary people with ordinary human problems like loneliness and thwarted dreams -- like the title characters in the story "The Hill Bachelors", which is also the title of Trevor's most recent short story collection. (I'm aware that my theory about the English/Irish dichotomy in Trevor's works is a wild oversimplification, and it probably doesn't mean anything, but if I were an English lit graduate student, that wouldn't stop me from making a dissertation out of it.)

I tend to prefer Trevor's Irish stories (and not just because he once used my fairly uncommon Irish surname as the name of a bar in one of his short stories, to my great delight), so it isn't surprising that I didn't love "On the Streets" as much as I've loved some of his other stories. One of my favorite Trevor short stories -- which I had the pleasure of hearing him read aloud at the 92nd Street Y in New York, a few years ago -- is "The Piano Tuner's Wives", a masterful character study of a blind piano tuner and his very different first and second wives. The last sentence of the story is so brilliant I still remember it, years after having read the story. It's included in the collection called After Rain.

Trevor's most recent novel, The Story of Lucy Gault, was probably the best book I read in 2002. It tells the heartbreaking story of how a small child's foolish act has consequences that warp the rest of her life, and her parents' lives. Although the story covers the period from the 1920's to the 1950's, it has the feeling of a more distant time: imagine a Thomas Hardy novel, if Hardy had been Irish, and you've got the idea.

bree, I really envy you having had the chance to hear Trevor read! He never ventures this far west, not that I blame him.

I also though "Lucy Gault" was wonderful. So sad at times I had to put it down for a while. There was a terrific review of the novel and "The Lovely Bones" in Harper's a few months ago. Trevor came in for high praise, and much deserved!

NO ONE ON THIS THREAD THINKS TREVOR'S STORY IS A POLITICAL ALLEGORY!

Hi D'art, and welcome. Do not waste time with the idea that anyone here thinks this story is a political allegory. Larry and I were kidding each other with that line of thought, and some people took that seriously. I started that goofy idea, which has caused some confusion, and I apologize to all.

Y'know, since no one can tell online if anyone is goofing around without them saying so, it might not be a bad idea to say just kidding or the like when goofing around. Save a lot of misunderstandings that way, IMHO.

And I'm not kidding here.

Thanks all.

Hi, everybody. I still don't have m'New Yorker and I was not in the mood to read the story online last night. As to the allegory riff, I saw that it was a riff right away the next morning. I am easily confused when I read things at midnight. Do not quail at adding more playful riffs, she says. We'll see if I miss it twice...

Some people just take these discussions too seriously. IOf we can't have some fun with them, what's the point? Life is serious enough--especially now that bush has his splendid little immoral war going--without making these discussions deadly serious too!

Larry, I'm all for having some fun, but the fun is kinda impaired with "as usual, D'art gets it wrong" type statements, especially since D'art said quite clearly that he hadn't even read the story yet. Ya know?

I like playful riffs, too. Especially, as you say, in our current world situation <heavy sigh.>

Bree, really interesting! Nice to get your take on it, as you obviously know Trevor well. I especially liked your observation that



There are a few mentions of the Underground, by the way -- that makes me assume it's London.

I finally read it. The writing was quite graceful -- I liked how enough information was given about Arthurs in the first section (about the information he gathered about people) to predict that he was the husband pursuing Cheryl in the next section. I generally appreciate elliptical writing, giving bits and pieces of the picture rather than spelling it all out.

I found it more interesting as a character study, though, rather than outright pathology -- I was enjoying it, or at least appreciating the craftsmanship, until it became clear that Arthurs was a murderer. That tipped it into something less nuanced, more lurid.

Sozobe -- Do you think Arthurs really was a murderer? I thought he was at first, but then I changed my mind when I got to the paragraph that begins "On one occasion he'd shown her a bruise he'd acquired on a finger while he was committing his crime". The paragraph goes on to describe other occasions on which he apparently also told Cheryl about having committed the crime, as if he had done it on that very day. Since he couldn't have committed the same murder on several different days, my take on it was that -- while Arthurs may have gone as far as going to the house where the man and woman lived -- he never actually went in and killed the woman, but was only fantasizing about it, and that he got a sick thrill not only out of imagining killing the woman but, perhaps even more, out of describing the (imaginary) murder to his ex-wife. I also got the impression that Cheryl knew enough about him to know that's what he was doing, but that -- for some sick reason of her own -- she was willing to listen to his fantasy and pretend that she believed him. On the particular occasion described in the story, she apparently reacted to his story by crying, which I think is what Trevor meant in the last sentence, when he wrote: "Her tears, tonight, [emphasis added] allowed him peace."

Ya know, that makes sense... let me go re-read. (I definitely read too fast, standing next to my daughter as she was playing with her blocks and periodically showing me her latest creation, and generally did not get as deeply into it as to ensure I got that kind of subtlety. Back in a bit.)

OK so here's why I thought it really happened:



That seems to indicate that after fantasizing, he'd finally done something.



That could still just be the introduction to his fantasy, but seems like something did happen that morning.

He definitely at least steals:



Oh, but yes, this does seem that he has told the story many times, in many ways:



and



"Parade of what hadn't happened..." You're definitely right.

That ups my estimation of the story a bit, though it's still icky.

Sozobe and Bree, my take on the story is that Arthurs fantasized abut doing the murder but that he never really did it, and that the story's details changed from time to time. Also that he had a little trouble getting the fantasy and the reality mixed up; thus, he laundered his jacket to get off the blood. I suppose it could also be that he laundered the jacket to make the story more real for Cheryl, but I prefer the first explanation.

Cheryl speaks of his having "cunning in his parade of what hadn't happened..."

I find it easier to understand Arthurs than Cheryl. She seems fairly normal as things start out. How did she work herself around to feeling a need to pity him, or to find in his sad life an excuse for her own pity for herself (I don't want to label it self pity--too pejorative).

It is always easier to understand the wholly insane than the partially insane. But it takes the partially insane to enable the wholly insane, very often, to carry out their twisted scheme. Examples would be the helpers of Charles Manson, the flunkeys who surrounded Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the members of Rev. Jom Jones' entourage who followed him to Guyana.

"She didn't understand that, though she accepted that when you married someone you took on his baggage, and one day the healing would be complete."

This sentence implies that Cheryl had hope (at some point) of Arthurs' improving one day. But other than that, we really don't get much explanation for her behavior.

Thanks, mascm. I remember reading that line, even highlighting it, but I'd forgotten it.

Bree, after rereading your last post, I think you have Cheryl's reaction to all Arthurs' storys of murder just right.

My first time through this story, I had to go over the last few paragraphs a couple of times before I got the picture.

Yeah, I think Bree's totally got it.

macsm11, good line. I agree that Cheryl's character was just kind of lacking... I mean, she was not completely unbelievable or anything, but there wasn't much there there. I like that, on one level -- the resistance of the temptation to Fill In the Backstory, to Give Psychological Explanation of Behavior. But it's not a style that does a lot for me, at least with these specific characters.

I agree, Sozobe, it's best to simply tell what happens, and forget the psychological explanations. It is enough for the reader to realize that there is a psychological problem.

The weakness of the story for me comes with the character of Cheryl. Trevor would have been on stronger ground if he had stuck to Arthurs and his delusions. But because he brings in Cheryl, he sets up the expectation that her behavior is somehow going to be explained--and then doesn't explain it. If the story had been a bit longer he could have fleshed Cheryl out better. As it is the story feels a bit hasty, a bit truncated to me.

I agree with that analysis, Larry. I think the point of the story was supposed to be their false, transient, illusion-riddled relationship, told in a clear-eyed way, but the characters are not interesting enough to withstand that.

Yikes, I just got my New Yorker today along with the 3/17 issue!!!! Will read it tonight and then read the posts and comment if I have anything to add.