Most of the action of the novel is shown through Pin’s eyes.
He has a limited understanding of what he sees, and it is the gap between his
relative innocence and the world going on with its business around
him, that offers some the amusement of the novel. Don't get me wrong - this is not a novel of compic misunderstandings. While Pin is an innocent abroad,
trying to survive among short-fused partisans living in the hills above the
unnamed city, he is also very “street-wise”. At the same time he is also short-sighted – he steals a
German soldier’s gun without giving any consideration to the likely
consequences, for himself or his sister.
Although Pin carries most of the narrative focus of the novel, there is one chapter where the point of view switches to one of the partisan fighters - this chapter, and the switch in particular, jars and disrupts the overall flow of the narrative, simply to give a brief lecture on the politics of resistance. The novel also includes some heavy handed symbolism. A pet hawk has its neck wrung, which I wrongly thought might foretell Pin’s eventual demise. The hawk is a more flexible metaphor for innocence and liberty, killed in the bloody war it gets caught up in (you can see why I thought this might have meant Pin, who also carries a lot of symbolic weight on his young shoulders.)
Although Pin carries most of the narrative focus of the novel, there is one chapter where the point of view switches to one of the partisan fighters - this chapter, and the switch in particular, jars and disrupts the overall flow of the narrative, simply to give a brief lecture on the politics of resistance. The novel also includes some heavy handed symbolism. A pet hawk has its neck wrung, which I wrongly thought might foretell Pin’s eventual demise. The hawk is a more flexible metaphor for innocence and liberty, killed in the bloody war it gets caught up in (you can see why I thought this might have meant Pin, who also carries a lot of symbolic weight on his young shoulders.)
The introduction to the novel is in some ways more
interesting than the novel itself. Calvino directly addresses the reader, and
is very frank about the novel’s genesis and its weaknesses. He avoids the
obvious explanation/excuse – he was a young writer just setting out to learnt
his craft – and gives a series of false starts, interrupting himself and
restarting each time with “This was my first novel...” Through this iterative
process he comes to an acceptance that this novel is a very minor part of Italy’s
literature of the war. He points out some interesting parallels – for example
with Treasure Island. Treasure Island is a very simple children’s novel, with memorable
but two-dimensional characters (with, arguably, the exception of the
charismatic but evil Long John Silver) and has a young boy as its narrator,
caught up in an adventure out of his control. So is this novel also a children’s
story? And does that explain why it appears on the Eton list? Probably. Roald
Dahl’s autobiographical “Boy” is often taught in state schools for the same
reason – tell a child a tale about another child having adventures, and it will
capture their attention in a way that other stories by the same author may not.
This is one of the secrets behind the success of Harry Potter of course. It
confirms my suspicion that the Eton list is not an aspirational piece of
showing off, but more in the way of a light, unadventurous
summer reading list that a bright 16 year old could probably run through in a couple of
months.
And as for this novel? Well it won’t occupy you for long,
and its weaknesses are capably pointed out by the author himself (although I
would recommend you read the preface after the novel). It is an
interesting tale of the partisan war in Italy, but other than that it is little
more than a curiosity.
No comments:
Post a Comment