Book review: A Separate Peace / John Knowles (1959)


No spoilers. This was a good coming-of-age novel, and short at only 200 pages. The first 50 pages is some of the best fiction I’ve read all year! The beginning contains that special summertime atmosphere I loved in the movie Box of moonlight. And the final page still gives me chills thinking about it. The middle part of the book didn’t impress me as much and could have been better. The last 50 pages or so were an improvement, and better than the middle section.

The setting is an American boarding school for teenage boys during the 1940s. Events are narrated by Gene Forrester, the insecure, conscientious, nerdy and bookish main character with a fragile identity. Gene’s best friend is Phineas/Finny, athletic, out-going, confident and popular, a natural leader, loves sports, but is academically inferior to Gene. The story is mostly about Gene and Phineas’s differences and how their friendship evolves during a memorable summer and year they will never forget.

On the surface they appear a mismatch, but they each offer something to the other which they themselves lack and maybe are jealous of. Is Gene an unreliable narrator? You could argue Phineas was never the superhero Gene imagined him to be. Some claim Gene cannot express his jealousy, because Phineas has always been kind to him, and gives Gene the friendly push, which Gene needs. This jealously and frustration is portrayed as something internal. Gene also suspects that Phineas games and rebellious attitude are an attempt to derail Gene’s studies? Gene feels torn between academic expectations, and loyalty to his friend. For much of the novel Gene seems to regard Phineas personality as full of contradictions: “who seemed to love the school truly and deeply, and never more than when he was breaking the regulations”. Some have indicated in other reviews that Gene was weak and secretly loathed Phineas, but I’m not sure I agree with this. This ambiguity is part of the appeal. The friendship to me is mutual. I would even go so far as to say Gene at times secretly wants to be Phineas. The book questions what friendship is. Something everyone can relate to.

Perhaps Knowles didn’t need to include so many descriptions of nature. Another weakness I found was the lack of interest in girls among the teenage boys, which is a little odd given their age. Some reviewers claim there may be a homosexual subtext in Gene and Phineas’s relationship, I seriously doubt this. It’s more about an inner- and outer- war and peace. World War II has just begun, but the Devon students are removed from its hard realities, and can therefore accept or reject it as they choose. The possibility of being drafted looms in the air. I thought the war elements are comparable to young US soldier’s dealing with feelings towards the recent Iraq/Afghanistan conflict. I think it’s an anti-war novel. At the same time, Gene is fighting a war within himself, he appears to leave behind his old and innocent ways, and create a new and more mature self. To me, the book seems to question if Gene would in fact prefer to go back to his old self.

This is a deceptively straightforward book. The actual storyline is simple, Gene looking back on his schooling 15 years earlier, but to me the atmosphere and confused adolescent emotions are the strengths of the book.

I’ve read in a critical essay that Gene the boy is too close to his own experiences to understand them properly, and Gene the man is too removed to express effectively the vitality that characterizes adolescence, but between them they succeed in dissolving the limitations of conventional first-person narration. According to the author John Knowles, man can only know himself through action; he learns about life by acting on it, not by thinking about it:

Page 1:
“school looked like a museum, and that’s exactly what it was to me, and what I did not want it to be. In the deep, tacit way in which feeling becomes stronger than thought, I had always felt that Devon School came into existence the day I entered it, was vibrantly real while I was a student there, and then blinked out like a candle the day I left”

The name Phineas is linked to Greek mythology. I’ve read that the Greek view of Phineas sports is a competition against oneself, a healthy struggle in which you measure your capacities without ego, fear, or hubris. This is particularly evident in the swimming scene. Phineas is also the name of an angel in the bible, and Phineas acts as a guardian angel towards Gene.

A thirty-something male narrator looking back on school life and the main theme of guilt is a little similar to Donna Tartt’s “The Secret History”, which I reviewed in 2010. I probably should have read “A separate peace” when I was younger. Having said that, this is the sort of novel you can easily re-read looking for clues, as the main character’s behaviour can be tough even for adults to understand.

Selling over nine million copies, it was one of the most widely read American novels after World War II. Like several other book recommendations on my blog, it’s based on John Knowles’ own experiences growing up, and comes across as a very personal debut novel. A little-known and judging from reviews inferior sequel was released in 1981 called "Peace Breaks Out".

The title “A Separate Peace” is very interesting, and open to interpretation. Is it about moulding your own separate personality within a group? Do the two main characters achieve some kind of peace? Or should we read the title as a reflection of the safe haven boarding school cut off from the violent war abroad. The title is derived from a quotation in Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms in which Lt. Henry states, "I had made a separate peace," with his adversaries in World War I.

If you like old-fashioned American coming-of-age tales with a memorable and introspective narrator like boyish girl Frankie Addams in Carson McCullers' warm-hearted war time novel "The Member of the Wedding" (1946), or confused Holden Caulfield in “The Catcher in the rye” (1951), “A Separate Peace” is for you. All three of these books in my opinion are stronger for internal monologues rather than the actual storytelling; they all explore bored adolescents trying to figure out who they are. Another classic coming-of-age novel you might want to check out is Betty Smith's A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1943), which is one I haven’t read.

If you enjoy reading about teenage angst and male friendship, “A Separate Peace” is a recommended read. The book gets extra points for the characters ability to stay with me afterwards. One of those books, which reveals itself in hindsight.

8/10

Further reading

Songs for your iPod

Real Life - Joan As Policewoman

(From soundtrack for movie The Cry of the Owl (2009). On youtube: “feels like an invisible hug from a spirit that you've never realised was always beside you”)



...

Christobel - Joan As Policewoman



...

Everything you want - Vertical Horizon

Documentary review: A Decade Under the Influence (2003)


A documentary which also works as an advertisement or appetizer for everything 70s. I loved the way they had many of the talented directors and actors of the time talking nostalgically and energetically in interviews clips about what the 70s movies meant to them, and how they perceived society, and so on.

An insightful feature length documentary. You can tell it was produced by the independent film channel, a bunch of lesser known indie films are mentioned or discussed. So many in fact I felt I needed to stop and write them down every 10 minutes! An example was Scorsese's Alice doesn't live here anymore (1974), which I subsequently watched, and liked.

The only thing missing for me maybe is for a distinction between what were the best and worst 70s films, here they seem to praise everything, which was different and shocking. They have directors talking about their most acclaimed work, and highlighting some key scenes from some of the movies, which is interesting.

An unusual perspective I thought was how stars from the 70s era were often not so good-looking, anybody could become a movie star. The story became the focus, looks were less important, as opposed to the contract based stars of the past. It was a time of rebellion, of questioning every accepted idea. Moviegoers were turning their backs on tired studio formulas, and wanted to watch stories they could relate to in their own lives.

I’ve watched the other 70s documentary, Easy riders Raging bulls (2003), but thought ‘A Decade Under the Influence’ had the most to offer. Although people seem to disagree, which of the two is best. I wouldn't suggest watching both, unless you are using it for educational reasons, as they cover a lot of the same ground.




If you are expecting to hear interviews of Clint Eastwood, Warren Beatty, and Steven Spielberg you will be disappointed, but a lot of other famous directors and actors are on board.

I got the feeling the piece was a little biased and trying to say there are not nearly as many talented, groundbreaking directors making their mark in the 2000s, and this I agree with to a certain extent. Although not all the stuff the 70s directors touched turned to gold, and likewise can be said about any generation. There is always good and bad, in all eras of film.

This documentary is very relatable today, I think studio executives could learn a thing or two here about giving filmmakers more creative freedom and not just thinking profit. Who knows, maybe the next audience rebellion has already started? It's hard to know if history will repeat itself and we will ever see another decade like the 70s. It would be great, if it did happen ( :

Anyway, well worth your time and enjoyable whether you are already an admirer of 70s films or a newcomer to the scene.

Readers, what are your favourite movies of the 70s ?


IMDB

Rottentomatoes

Songs for your iPod

(To mix it up, here are 3 songs from Scandinavia I like. Dream pop, folk, and lastly electronic. Readers, any other music from this region you can recommend?)

Masselinjen - Kliche



...

The Balcony - The Rumour Said Fire




...

Aldrig Ensam - Jonathan Johansson

Film review: Dinner with friends (2001)


This is an interesting and insightful film, but you wouldn’t have guessed it was made-for-TV judging from the cast. Looks like a project like this attracted some fairly big names. Directed by Norman Jewison, who also directed “The Hurricane” with Denzil Washington and “Moonstruck” (which I liked) from the 80s.

“Dinner with friends” is a contemporary character study of two married couples, and their struggles. The drama is set in Connecticut and New York. It’s about friendship, the two husband’s are best friends, and so are their wives. So it’s about both female and male friendship. Due to events in the plot both couples must re-evaluate their seemingly perfect relationships. The focus is less on the kids and more about the adult issues. I think it’s partly about how messy relationship problems can sometimes be. Blame is a fickle thing, nobody is perfect.

I think “Dinner with friends” was probably written with married couples in mind as the key audience, but I’m sure single people could enjoy this too. The flashbacks made the story more about the psychology of the characters, and less about guessing what’s going to happen next.


I read the 86 page Pulitzer Prize winning play by Donald Marguiles, and it’s so short most of the dialogue is retained in the film adaptation. Basically like reading a script. As the back cover of the book explains, it’s a deceptively straight-forward suburban drama.

But I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a comedy, for me there were only a couple of laughs here and there. A small objection from my side would be some of the scenes were a little cliché for American families. The strength of the piece is clearly the dialogue.

Another reviewer points out author Marguiles poses several interesting questions about marriage and friendship: How do you handle growing old together? Could your marriage all fall apart? And if you knew everything about your closest friends, would you still want them around? Who has it right: those, who stick to marriage or those who break out of the rut? And how do we react when our closest friends doubt us?

According to the sleeve of the book, Donald Marguiles’s plays have been performed at major theatres across the United States and around the world. I have to say even though the book/play won the award for drama, I preferred the film. I tried reading plays before and I think at least in this case, it works best being performed and spoken by actors. Just gives it more realism and emotion.


But the book is slightly more sophisticated and quotable. The movie was "dumbed down" a bit. I recommend both film and book version. I can’t say which you should go for, they each are their own thing. I liked both!

Here are some of my favourite verbal fireworks from the book (no spoilers) :

“I met X – she made me feel good from the first time I talked to her on the phone”

“Have I ever been so wrong about someone? God, what does this say about my judgment?"

“He’s essentially a good guy waiting to happen. He just needs to find the right woman”

“When you’re single, you expend so much energy. I know. You’re always looking, always feeling scrutinized. It’s exhausting”

“I don’t know, I think she likes you. Yeah? Then I like her. Uh, you’re so deep”

“I thought if I could choose my family this time, if I could make my friends my family....Congratulations. The family you’ve chosen is just as fucked-up and fallible as the one you were born into”

“Settling down, having kids. It was just one more thing I did because it was expected of me, not because I had any real passion for it”

“How come the minute the conversation turns to us you’re struck mute?”

IMDB

Rottentomatoes

Readers, any thoughts? Any other plays made into films you like?

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails