Shirley Jackson, page 1 of 3

The Sundial is Shirley Jackson’s fourth novel, begun in 1956 (following a couple of years of creative block, according to her biographer Ruth Franklin) and finished in July 1957. It was published to mixed reviews the following year.

The setting, like the two masterpieces that would follow it (The Haunting of Hill House and We Have Always Lived in the Castle), is a large country house, surrounded by a walled-in estate. This is the home of the Halloran family, who, as the novel begins, have just buried their only son, Lionel. Lionel’s wife, Maryjane, is convinced her mother-in-law pushed Lionel down the stairs. She shares her suspicions with her ten-year-old daughter Fancy, and soon the little girl is asking “Shall I push her? … Like she pushed my daddy?”

Whether she pushed him or not, Mrs Halloran now owns the house (her husband is still alive but feeble in mind and body), and says she’s going to eject as many of its inhabitants as she can: Maryjane will be given a small allowance and sent to live in an apartment in the city, though Fancy (who stands to inherit after Mrs Halloran) will stay; Fancy’s governess Miss Ogilvie, and young Essex, who came to catalogue the library, will simply have to leave. Meanwhile, Aunt Fanny—the aged Mr Halloran’s sister—will be moved into the house’s tower, with the implication that she’ll be expected to stay there.

They’re saved, though, when Aunt Fanny, after getting lost in the house’s extensive gardens and having some sort of agoraphobic attack (perhaps egged on by Fancy, though the girl denies being there), seems to receive a communication from her dead father, saying the world is going to end (“Fire and floods and sidewalks melting away and the earth running with boiling lava”), though everyone in the house will be saved, the lone inheritors of a new world, into which they will emerge “safe and pure”.

Mrs Halloran—as well as pretty much everyone else in the novel—accepts this, and allows everyone to stay after all: if she sends them away from the house now, they’ll be killed in the coming apocalypse, and she doesn’t want that on her conscience. It’s agreed not to tell anyone on the outside (and it’s perhaps notable of this misanthropic bunch that not one of them has someone they want to warn or save), but a number of people turn up by chance and are allowed to stay. There’s an old acquaintance of Mrs Halloran’s, Mrs Willow, now a widow and in search of some means of providing for her late-twenties daughters Arabella and Julia, who come along too. Seventeen-year-old Gloria Desmond, daughter of Mrs Halloran’s cousin, also turns up, having been sent for a holiday while her father is away. And Aunt Fanny decides to adopt a random man she finds in the local village—perhaps realising they have only Essex and the feeble Mr Halloran in the house, now—a man she pretends to recognise as (a name clearly made-up on the spot) Captain Scarabombardon.

They start making their plans. Aunt Fanny buys bulk supplies at random—food, medicines, umbrellas. Mrs Halloran issues a page of rules everyone will be expected to follow on the night before the apocalypse and that first new morning, including the need to look presentable: “I want to know that I am bringing with me into that clean world a family neat, prepossessing, and well-groomed.” She talks about “the good impressions we must create”, even though that new world will, supposedly, be devoid of people. The servants will be sent away the day before (to die with everyone else), and the villagers will be given an (unknown to them) farewell party.

The sundial of the novel’s title is the one part of the house that, because it has been placed off-centre, defies the otherwise perfect architectural symmetry. The dial bears an inscription, “What is this world?”, a quote from Chaucer’s Knight’s Tale:

What is this world? What asketh man to have?
Now with his love, now in his colde grave,
Allone, with-outen any companye.

If Jackson is asking “What is this world?” of the world she’s created in The Sundial, then it’s a world of casual backbiting, social power-play, and a constant, outwardly civil cruelty between the characters. And it’s one in which the “love” referred to by Chaucer is already absent, well before the “colde grave” comes to call.

All of the characters are here not because they love one another, but because they’re dependent on Mrs Halloran’s riches. And Mrs Halloran, whose one and only aim seems to be to own the house (“It is my house now, and it will be my house then. I will not relinquish one stone of it in this world or any other.”) presumably lets them stay not only for her conscience’s sake (she barely has one), but because she knows, if she ousted them and they thought they were going to die, they’d most likely force themselves back inside, and maybe get rid of her in the process. Rich she may be, but her riches are her only power, and they’ll surely mean nothing in the new world.

One of the things that means The Sundial doesn’t work as well as Jackson’s subsequent two novels, for me, is that it has no main character, no side to take amongst all these rather icy folk. Hill House has Eleanor, and Castle has Merricat. Neither is necessarily admirable (Eleanor is weak, Merricat a murderer), but both are very clearly, and relatably, human. There’s no one like that here. And not just because none of the characters is exactly sympathetic—that doesn’t matter—it’s because none of them is fleshed out enough. Mrs Halloran gets the closest, though largely because she’s the one in charge. But whereas at the start I felt that her believing in the prophecy was more by way of acknowledging a sort of social chess-move on Aunt Fanny’s part (to force her to allow everyone to stay), by the end of the novel it’s apparent she fully believes it, leaving me unable to work her out, as a character. She declares she’ll be queen of the new world when it comes, and buys herself a gold crown. Perhaps she, too, went insane, just more quietly? The rest of the characters (all but one) are too shallow to be much differentiated. When Jackson began bringing in new people—Arabella, Julia, Gloria, the captain—I couldn’t work out why, because none of them brought anything different to the story. Granted, Julia makes a break for it and tries to leave the house for the city, but it might as easily have been Arabella, or Gloria, or Maryjane.

The one exception to all this is Fancy, the ten year old girl whose self-absorption and lack of sentimentality made me think of her as a proto-Merricat (the narrator of Jackson’s last novel, We Have Always Lived in the Castle, with whom she shares a certain witchyness). Fancy is the one character with any life to her, and the one character to see through the ridiculousness of the prophecy, and the household’s belief that the world ending would be a good thing. What, she asks at one point, “makes anyone think you’re going to be more happy or peaceful just because you’re the only ones left?” And: “you all want the whole world to be changed so you will be different”, with the clear implication this isn’t going to be the case. Fancy herself, meanwhile, is the only one to actually want the world outside to continue to exist, even to go out into it:

“Who wants to be safe, for heaven’s sake? … I’d rather live in a world full of other people, even dangerous people. I’ve been safe all my life…”

Early on, I suspected the events of the novel were, really, driven by some witchy plot by Fancy. We know she has a very detailed doll-house, and at one point one of its dolls is found on the sundial, pierced by pins, voodoo-style—is she, then, actually manipulating all these events? If she really was present when Aunt Fanny had her anxiety-driven visions, did she in fact create them, as part of her aim of getting her own back on Mrs Halloran for pushing Lionel down the stairs? (I couldn’t help picturing Fancy, with her very detailed doll-house, as a stand-in for the author, who is herself playing with her own little fictional doll-house, with the Hallorans and co. as dolls—and just as lifeless as dolls, too.)

The thing is, Fancy appears in the first chapter, and briefly (and disappearingly) in the second, then is absent for most of the rest of the novel till the finale. And I suspect the reason for this is that Jackson might have sensed how quickly Fancy would have demolished all the other characters, and quite rightly taken over the narrative, making it into a very different novel (a better one, but evidently not the one Jackson wanted to write at that point). Fancy is the one living character among a host of the dead and the dull, and the basic notion of The Sundial just wouldn’t have withstood her little-girl pertinacity and self-interest. So, she’s left to reappear at the end, where she promptly assumes the dominance due to her, as though marking her place at the centre of a future novel (Castle).

Without her, the rest of the novel is episodic and patchy. It’s funny, yes, in a very dark, deadpan, Charles Addams kind of way, but the humour can never be anything more than witty, snipy lines, because none of the characters has enough character to support anything deeper. (You can’t joke about Julia, or Arabella, or Gloria, because what is there to joke about?) Elsewhere, chapters, or even incidents in chapters, feel like they might be better as standalone stories. A number actually suggest existing Jackson stories, such as Julia’s nightmare journey through the absurdly-named Fog Pass in the company of a sadistic and lecherous taxi driver (which could sit alongside a story like “The Bus” or “Paranoia” from Dark Tales). Jackson’s portrait of the nearby village as striving for an outward gentility while knowing its one and only attraction is a house where a child murdered all her family but one aunt (another detail that points to We Have Always Lived in the Castle), captures something of Jackson’s satire on late 50s America, and could easily have been a novel on its own. Incidents such as the Hallorans having to start burning books when Aunt Fanny’s supply-buying requires the library shelves for storage, or Aunt Fanny creating a duplicate of her mother’s house in the attic, or her getting lost in the garden maze, or the visit of a rival apocalyptic cult who are expecting to be taken to Saturn one day, and have had to renounce all metal ornaments—all these could be Jackson stories, and might have worked better standalone than here, in a novel, where they don’t really gel with anything else.

Jack Sullivan in The Penguin Encyclopedia of Horror and the Supernatural is much more positive about The Sundial, calling it “a quirky, brilliant tale of apocalyptic terror”. In it, he says, “Jackson pulled out all the stops… and was not afraid to switch tones abruptly.” (I’d say the tones don’t so much switch as wander.) And while I’d certainly agree “these are some of Jackson’s most intensely neurotic and unpleasant characters” (though without the “intensely”), and that the humour is “more sardonic and pungent than in any of her work to this point”, I don’t know if I can agree that this humour, as Sullivan says, “is irresistible”.

Perhaps if I’d read The Sundial before Hill House and Castle, I might have appreciated its dark humour more—but only because it provides a taster of what, in those final two books, is so well developed. It’s a further examination of her intense ambivalence about the idea of home. A quote from a talk she gave about the writing of Sundial is revealing about this theme in her fiction. Saying that her fiction, up to that point, had mainly been about people trying to get into some walled-off paradise they never attain (those nightmare journeys home), she decided to try writing something that starts within the walled-off paradise, only to find:

“I had set myself up nicely within the wall inside a big strange house I found there, locked the gates behind me, and discovered the only way to stay with any degree of security was to destroy, utterly, everything outside.”

In her creation of ten-year-old Fancy, who welcomes danger so long as it brings her people, Jackson had perhaps allowed a little kernel of herself to defy that sense of apocalyptic, agoraphobic dread which powers her final two novels. Fancy/Merricat—the wilful and witchy girl who lacks sentimentality and can push a grandmother down the stairs, or poison her family—is, perhaps, Jackson’s version of a survivor-character, her perfect embodiment of vitality in the otherwise dark and cruel world she creates in her fiction. The trouble was, the rather low-tension atmosphere of social backbiting and petty power games she created in The Sundial wasn’t challenge enough for the likes of Fancy/Merricat, and the girl had to be left offstage for too long.

An impulsive re-read of King’s third published novel, from 1977, which I’m going to follow soon with his more recent sequel, Doctor Sleep. (Which feels like it was published only a couple of years ago, but I see it came out in 2013, and King has no doubt written a score of novels since then.)

Recovering alcoholic and would-be writer Jack Torrance, recently fired from a teaching post after assaulting a pupil who’d slashed his tyres, gets a job (thanks to a much wealthier ex-drinking buddy) as winter caretaker at the remote Overlook Hotel. Perched high in the Colorado mountains and mostly unreachable from late October to April, the Overlook has a murky past, as one of the locals at the nearest town, Sidewinder (forty miles away), muses at one point:

“Murder had been done up there. A bunch of hoods had run the place for a while, and cut-throat businessman had run it for a while, too. And things had been done up at the Overlook that never made the papers, because money had a way of talking.”

To top it all, a previous winter caretaker, Delbert Grady, had slaughtered his wife, two daughters, and then himself. All in all, it’s a nasty brew of bad psychic residue. But, desperate for a job and a chance to make it as a writer, Jack sees it as the perfect opportunity to finish a play he’s working on. Plus, he’ll be completely out of reach of alcohol, so that temptation will be removed. The trouble is, the Overlook is as haunted as Hell itself, and it’s hungry for more souls—most hungry of all for Jack’s five-year-old son Danny, who has a strong telepathic ability, “the shine”.

As a haunted house novel, it builds interestingly on Shirley Jackson’s Haunting of Hill House (and perhaps the only reason King didn’t use an epigraph from that novel is he’d already used it for Salem’s Lot). Both King’s and Jackson’s books are about a haunted place whose haunter isn’t so much an individual spook, as a sort of evil consciousness all of its own, a consciousness you can never be sure was ever human, but which certainly wants to collect human souls. In both, there’s a sensitive character particularly vulnerable to both the hauntings and the haunted place’s invitation to be part of it.

King adds a few turns of the screw to Jackson’s idea. First of all, the sensitive character here is a child—and though in some ways this makes Danny more vulnerable to the Overlook than Eleanor is to Hill House, in others it makes him more resilient, as he doesn’t have her sense of hopelessness. Jack, on the other hand, is a mess of weak points for the Overlook to needle at: he has a temper, is haunted by his own father’s alcoholism and violent rages, and is tottering on the edge of a host of failures:

“He had failed as a teacher, a writer, a husband, and a father. He had even failed as a drunk.”

Perhaps the most intriguing difference to Jackson’s haunted house is that the Overlook, of course, is a hotel. And that doesn’t just mean every room holds a potential spook. The luxurious and remote Overlook seems to sum up the dark, oppressive threat of excess wealth and leisure. There’s something inherently sinister, almost evil, about the idle rich—and the Overlook is where the rich go to idle. Its most characteristic haunting is a 1940s-era party, though I don’t think we’re ever told exactly what evil occurred at that event—it’s as though the very air of wealth, idleness, and power are enough. At one point, the hotel’s evil is explicitly likened to money:

“Little by little a force had accrued, as secret and silent as interest in a bank account.”

And its leverage over Jack is in good part down to his poverty—he has no choice but to stick to this job, however supernaturally dangerous it starts to seem, as it’s that or the very real dangers of divorce, joblessness, and a return to alcoholism.

For me, one of the best aspects of the novel that the film (which I’m much more familiar with) all but leaves out, is Jack’s researches into the Overlook’s history. In the basement, piled high with boxes of receipts, old newspapers, and the occasional scrap of juicy history, he finds a scrapbook in which someone has pasted a record of all the dark goings-on at the hotel—those that made it to the papers, anyway. It leads Jack to want to write about the hotel’s history (though this may be just the hotel itself trying to charm him into staying) and he at one point muses that the Overlook “forms an index of the whole post-World War II American character”, rife as it is with the evils of excess riches, misused power and organised crime.

Perhaps disappointingly, perhaps wisely, King doesn’t trace the Overlook’s evil back to a definite origin. (It’s the film that has it being built on a Native American burial ground.) The feel is, rather, that the accumulation of human evils somehow coalesced into something new and far worse—or perhaps attracted some non-human supernatural evil that could take advantage of it all, like the investment banker to all those little deposits of lesser evil. In a way, this aspect of King’s work echoes David Lynch, another American artist who has a real sense of evil, the way it can latch onto and exaggerate human evil, elevating it to a supernatural dimension.

As I’ve said before (in my re-read of IT), I think King’s at his most effective when his supernatural darkness needs human beings to work through—when he unleashes the pure supernatural he can go over the top for my tastes, into realms that are no longer scary. In this book, I think he does that with the topiary animals, who I just can’t find scary. (Perhaps because I keep imagining an attempt at what I think is a hedge squirrel in a road not too far from me, which convinces me that no hedge animal could look as detailed, or expressive, as King makes his.) The other thing about the hedge animals is it opens up the question of, if the Overlook can animate these things, why doesn’t it animate other things inside the hotel itself and simply kill the Torrances that way? Strangle them all with fire-hoses, for instance, or bash their heads in with doors? It’s much better when it needs Jack to do its work for it, and Jack’s slow descent into paranoia and self-justification in the need to murder his family is what makes The Shining so chilling.

King has spoken about how it was only sometime after writing The Shining that he admitted to himself he was an alcoholic, and that some of his darker thoughts went into Jack. But I think a fuller portrait of the author comes through in Jack’s relationship with Danny. As much as King might have been a less exaggerated Jack, inside he’s surely a Danny: the sensitive, intelligent kid trying to deal with an overwhelmingly difficult and dangerous world. (As Dick Hallorann says: “The world’s a hard place, Danny. It don’t care. It don’t hate you and me, but it don’t love us, either. Terrible things happen in the world, and they’re things no one can explain.”)

King famously dislikes Stanley Kubrick’s 1980 adaptation of the novel, but for me it’s hard not to see and hear Jack Torrance as Jack Nicholas. Kubrick drops some of King’s ideas (and as one of these is the hedge animals, that can’t be all bad), swaps King’s roque mallet for an axe (surely a more sturdy tool, even if the roque mallet comes with associations of idle luxury while the axe is a workman’s tool), and best of all adds those images that linger in the mind: the blood gushing from the lift doors, the spooky not-twins-who-look-like-twins, that 70’s carpet pattern. In a way, these images, though they’re not in King’s novel, still fit the spirit of King’s writing, as they’re like the catchphrases and (bracketed thoughts the characters are trying not to think) he peppers his text with. Plus, Kubrick’s film has that 70’s bleakness in its high-contrast film stock, an added element to any supernatural film.

Kate Summerscale has previously written about one of the earliest detective-led crime cases in Britain, The Suspicions of Mr Whicher (2008), but here turns her attention to a different type of investigation, in the world of between-the-wars paranormal research. Her “detective” is Nandor Fodor, a Jewish Hungarian journalist working for the International Institute for Psychical Research in London. As the book opens, he has come under flack from the psychic press for being too unsympathetic to spiritualism to properly investigate the mediums, poltergeists, and other phenomena (including Gef the Talking Mongoose) he’s looked into. Fodor hit back, launching a libel case against Psychic News, not just because his position at the International Institute required him to be impartial, but because he was genuinely open to belief in such things (having had some ghostly experiences as a child). The trouble was, he combined a willingness to believe with the rigour and honesty necessary not to be hoodwinked.

So, when some plausible-sounding and dramatic poltergeist activity at a house in Thornton Heath came up, he leapt at the chance to secure this as an exclusive for the Institute. Les and Alma Fielding were in bed, both under the weather (Les had had all his teeth removed, Alma had kidney trouble) when a glass threw itself across the room and shattered. This was but the first of many objects moving, often violently, in the house over the next few days, which had been witnessed by Alma, Les, their teenage son Don, and their lodger George. Fodor began investigating, and was soon convinced the poltergeist phenomena were genuine. If so, this was the chance he needed to prove he wasn’t simply intent on debunking psychic phenomena — and thereby win his case against the Psychic News and keep his job at the Institute.

Pretty soon, Alma Fielding — around whom the poltergeist activity centred — was paying regular visits to the Institute’s London offices, where she’d be thoroughly body-searched by female staff before entering a séance room and performing a variety of psychic stunts, all the time under the observation of witnesses. At first it was poltergeist phenomena — the sudden appearance of small, random objects, including live mice and an antique necklace, as well as the breakage of tea-cups, chairs suddenly falling over, and so on — but Fodor encouraged her in other directions, too. Alma proved to be a medium, able to go into a trance and let her spirit-guide Bremba talk through her. All the while, Fodor was wary of being tricked, and most of what Alma did smacked as much of stage magic as psychic ability. For instance, Fodor and some others took her on a trip to the seaside, during which they visited Woolworths and Alma tried on a ring at the jewellery counter. She gave it back and they all left the shop. But while walking along the road afterwards, an empty film tin Fodor had given Alma began to rattle, and when they opened it, they found the ring. Fodor wasn’t sure whether to be alarmed they’d just psychically shop-lifted, or amazed at what had happened.

One of the troubles with books about poltergeist phenomena, I find, is they often turn into protracted lists of random objects appearing, breaking, or flying across the room. It was no doubt fascinating, even frightening, to witness, but when read about it becomes tedious. Freud, who read and approved Fodor’s write-up of the Fielding case, nevertheless complained that “Some of the evidential detail was tiresome”, and I can’t help agreeing.

Inevitably, Fodor catches Alma in the act of throwing an object that was meant to be one of her poltergeist’s “apports”. An X-ray taken before a séance session reveals several objects hidden in her underwear. As though to keep one step ahead and remain interesting, Alma began exhibiting scratches on her skin caused by her spirit guide’s pet tiger. She tells Fodor of night visits by a vampire, and shows him the wounds…

The Haunting of Alma Fielding chimes in with some of the themes I’ve been looking at on this blog, though in fiction rather than fact. For instance, stories about psychic kids, in which children with unusual powers are chased, captured or held by unscrupulous scientific types, and studied in a lab, usually in a very dehumanising way. (Eleven in Stranger Things, for instance, or the boy in Stephen King’s The Institute.) Or the similar situation in ghost stories (The Stone Tape, for instance, and at least one episode of The Omega Factor), where investigators lay out every variety of measuring instrument to try and capture a haunting. Both of these situations come together in the real-life investigation of Alma Fielding and her unusual phenomena.

Except that Nandor Fodor is nothing like those ruthless fictional scientists. Whereas, say, the psychic investigator in the 2011 film The Awakening is utterly intent on doing nothing but debunk all the mediums and ghosts she comes across, Fodor is not only all-too-willing to believe, but is capable of more than the black-and-white, imposture-or-not style of thinking you’d expect. When he catches Alma surreptitiously throwing a small gemstone and pretending it was a psychic “apport”, he doesn’t take this as immediate evidence that everything about her case is fake. He knows his “psychic” subjects are unusual people, at the mercy of strange drives, and that they might feel the need to add to their genuine phenomena with bursts of fakery and showmanship:

“In psychical science, one fraudulent act did not invalidate all of a medium’s claims. The transcendent and the tawdry were often united in one psyche.”

Fodor, in fact, is just as fascinated by the new science of psychoanalysis, and brought its ideas to bear on his psychic investigations. He was ready to believe the psychic phenomena he was investigating were real, but was also interested in finding out if they were driven by — and perhaps entirely explained by — the psychology of the people they centred on. He entertained the idea that certain kinds of intense psychological conditions might cause objects to move, break, even appear, without the need of an external “ghost” or poltergeist. Equally, he thought the whole thing could be imposture, but unconscious imposture, so that Alma might, for instance, really believe it was a poltergeist that caused her tea-cup to fling itself across the room, when it was simply herself — her unconscious self — flinging it, as the expression of some psychological drive or process hidden to her.

Fodor comes across, sometimes, as a little boy in wonderland. Confronted by one of Alma’s suddenly-appearing objects, he’s able to appreciate the wonder of what she’s just done, whether it’s a genuinely psychical event or a skilled magic trick she’s doing for his benefit. He is – unlike all those clipboard-wielding scientists who attach electrodes to Eleven and make her try to kill a cat with her mind-powers — genuinely concerned about Alma’s mental and physical health, going to the extent of recruiting her spirit guide, during a séance, to make sure she eats enough. When her experiences turn darker — when she starts telling tales of being visited by a vampire at night — he wonders if his investigation isn’t doing more harm than good, and that it may be uncovering something darker within Alma herself:

“Fodor believed that Alma’s apports and elaborations had stemmed from a feverish wish for change, escape, self-expression, but they had also ushered in unbidden experiences, such as the visits of the incubus and vampire, that were rooted in her past.”

The idea that traumatic memories could be so deeply buried as to be hidden from the conscious mind, yet come out in unusual and even violent ways, was new at the time. But Fodor began to suspect it was tied in with the cases of psychic phenomena he was investigating:

“A ghost was the sign of an unacknowledged horror… There were no words, so there was a haunting.”

Which sounds like it might have been taken from Bessel van der Kolk’s book on trauma, The Body Keeps the Score:

“Many traumatized children and adults simply cannot describe what they are feeling because they cannot identify what their physical sensations mean… Traumatic events are almost impossible to put into words.”

Ultimately, Fodor moved to New York, trained as a psychoanalyst, and wrote on the paranormal cases he’d investigated from a psychoanalytical point of view. Because of this, he was brought in as a consultant when Shirley Jackson’s The Haunting of Hill House was filmed by Robert Wise in 1963, and met Jackson, who told him she’d read his books. And this is another theme I’ve looked at in this blog: the ties between the early classics of modern horror and the discovery of the darker levels of the psyche in the work of early psychoanalysts. Fodor, it seems, was there, dealing with the actual real/not-real thing, and thinking about it in the same terms.

In The Haunting of Alma Fielding, Summerscale ties the rise of poltergeist activity in Britain between the World Wars (and there seems to have been a deluge of it) with growing tensions in Europe. In newspapers of the time, headlines about hauntings ran alongside images of the screaming face of Adolf Hitler on another rant. She also emphasises the intimate aspects of Fodor’s investigation of Alma, how often, for instance, his checking of her body for hidden objects, or the need to hold her hands to be sure she wasn’t throwing things, led to so much physical contact and attention. She also ties poltergeist phenomenon to another aspect of the age, Surrealist art, with its unexpected juxtapositions and inconsequentialities. The spirit world has its trends, too, it seems, and poltergeists, perhaps, were the Modernists of their kind, speaking as they did of trauma and fractured narratives (sudden breakages of objects, sudden eruptions into normality), the banality of modern life (focusing as it does on so many day-to-day objects like tea cups, spoons, plates), the apparent meaninglessness of human life (how all these bizarre breakages, bangs, and crashes ultimately mean nothing, and provide no message), all pointing to something deeply disturbing beneath it all, but unsayable in any other way — like The Waste Land, but written in broken crockery rather than fragments of verse.