Book Review: Under the Volcano by Malcolm Lowry

"A classic book is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read." - Mark Twain (attributed)

I have a loosely held "rule" that if I see a few prominent references to a book, and it meets other criteria (length, language, etc.) I must read it.  So I found myself a while ago reading Malcolm Lowry's Under the Volcano.  I love reading, but this book ended up on the very short list of books with very little redeeming qualities.  For perspective, The Catcher in the Rye is also on that list although the reasons are completely different.

When my older sister got married, a group of us were looking through the DJ's list of music for the reception.  The list looked woefully incomplete until I noticed that all the songs that started with the words "A" or "The" were alphabetically listed by A and T respectively.  I found this quite funny.

The synopsis of Under the Volcano can be effectively reduced to a few sentences, or paragraphs if being generous.

The main character is a Counsel in Mexico.  He may be retired, but definitely doesn't work.
He can be cordially considered a raving alcoholic.  He drinks incessantly through the book, passing out a few times.  He is enabled by the other main characters who frequently suggest a stop for refreshments.  To be fair, enablement is a more modern construct.  His (possibly ex) wife has come to visit him and try to patch things up.  The Counsel is too drunk to function, on any level.  The wife seems more upset about the state of the garden than the booze and the fact that he can't even bath himself.
The Counsel's brother Hugh comes into the picture to be filled with angst about his career as a journalist which he finds offensive.  The three of them go to Jacques' house to drink more.  Jacques is a French dude who used to work in film, before also being lost to alcohol in Mexico.  The three of them take a bus to a bullfight.  En route, they see a dog and a peasant killed in the street; the dog is treated with more sympathy.
At some point it is alluded to that Yvonne (the Counsel's wife) has had affairs with Hugh, Jacques and possibly others.  Pernod doesn't start to look so bad.
There is more drinking at and after the bullfight.  They end up in a bar frequented by somewhat corrupt Mexican officials.  Hugh and Yvonne get separated from the Counsel and start looking for him.  At this point in the book, Jacques disappears.  It rains.  The Counsel ends up getting shot by the Mexican officials over some nuance related to letters between himself and Yvonne.  Perhaps she had an affair with that official (The Elephant?) as well.  The Counsel's body is unceremoniously dumped in a ditch - with possible allegory to the dead peasant.  I think the book ends with Hugh and Yvonne looking for the Counsel down a main path after the path splits en route home from the bull fighting festival.

The story line has some potential.  Alcohol, cheating wives, corrupt officials, dead peasants, horses, thunder and all in a dingy Mexican city near two volcanoes.  What's not to love.
The unfortunate part is that the writing is so obtuse.  There are pages and pages of vague descriptions and alliterations where nothing happens.  It is at times hard to tell when something might be happening.
Often how something is written is as important as what is written.  In high school I recall struggling to read Hemingway.  Even The Old Man and the Sea was difficult as short as it was.  But having (re)read several works by Hemingway a few years ago, I've recognized a rhythm to his language.  At times it almost seems he creates a flaw in the words to force passages to be repeated.  Vonnegut, while more contemporary is always a good read.

After finishing Under the Volcano and not understanding how the book could have possibly made it to #11 of Modern Library's 100 Best English Language Novels, I rented the movie to see if I had missed something major hidden between the pages of Lowry's effluvium.  Actually, I didn't rent it.  I checked it out from the library - which says something about the title.
The movie was just as bad as the book.  This is also true of Breakfast at Tiffany's but Truman Capote at least had some redeeming qualities.  I've never understood if Holly Golightly was supposed to be a prostitute or not?  An internet search suggests this was an interminable question.  The book In Cold Blood was good; the movie was a bit of a letdown.

One interesting difference in the movie version of Under the Volcano is at the end while looking for the Counsel, Yvonne is killed by a riderless horse which is terrified by a storm.  I  think  there is significance that she is killed simultaneous to when the Counsel is shot.  Wikipedia suggests this may have been part of an earlier draft of Lowry's manuscript.  To the best of my comprehension, this was not part of the version of the book I read, nor was it alluded to.

Malcom Lowry died at the relatively young age of 48.  Life imitates art and he was a heavy drinker, which contributed either directly or indirectly to his death.

Perhaps the most critical question of the book is the title.  One of the only clear pictures in the entire book is the description of the volcanoes.  Plural, there are two.  Why is the title not  Under the Volcanoes?

Three Years

"While adults might gently argue – there is no monster in the closet, mommy is not going anywhere – we do not yank their blankie away.  Maybe we should.  We should take their comfort objects and destroy them, burn teddy in front of their eyes.  Because that is what happens when you grow up.  They take it away, your source of greatest comfort, and leave you...clawing at the smooth sealed box of an impenetrable mystery." – Neil Steinberg

Three years have passed now.

Early in education we learn through timelines.  These are usually represented in one dimension showing events in relation to when they occurred.

This one-dimensional view, of course, does not even come close to representing reality.  It represents at the most basic history, as Voltaire defined, "The lie agreed on."
This does represent how I saw myself when young.  Time progresses and things happen.

In order to denote progress, a second dimension is often added.  This dimension is designed to show progress in addition to merely the passing of time.  This approach may work for oversimplifying business or scientific change, but is also a limited approximation.  It also often has an agenda.
As I got older, this is how I saw the world.  Time progresses, I get older; things change in the process.

Looking back, neither one of these is remotely close to being correct.  The reality is far too complex, there is not one, two, or four dimensions to what has happened.  There are hundreds of dimensions and the timeline zigs and zags progressing and regressing.
Looking back, there is only one labyrinth path to now.  This means every decision I've made to get here, whether momentous or trivial is responsible for now.  Every decision I've made, I had to make - there was never any choice.
Looking back, I can see a fog through where I've been and how I thought I could have done something different.  But, I didn't and I can't.  I can look through the tunnel of fog and try to imagine how now might be different, but it doesn't represent reality given the inability to visualize what else would be different in all those loosely connected dimensions.  The farther back I look, the foggier it is.  It doesn't take too far back for the fog to become a completely opaque window; I am now, here.

What I can say is stopping drinking three years ago was a choice I had to make which led to where I am now.  It was only one of many choices though.  From many narratives I've read about the personal use of alcohol, three years is a time when it is not unusual for people to begin again, under the assumption that occasional drinking can return without issue.  The result is almost universally disastrous.

Other recent filial events have reinforced the notion of how terrible and unpredictable people and the future can be.

It is very tempting to put myself in the center of the universe.  Everything that happens near me affects me.
There are about 2500 people living in my township, 370,000 in my county, 11.5 million in my state, 310 million in the US.  There are a little over 7 billion people in the world.
It is never about me.