The text under interpretation and analysis is a passage from the novel `The Ebony Tower' by the outstanding English writer John Fowles. In his works he treats problems of illusion and reality, aesthetic values; he studies individuals who went astray in life and searches for ways of salvation. In `The Ebony Tower' Fowles is concerned with the artist's creative process, his choice of values and life circumstances which shape people's attitudes.
The excerpt in hand is a short selection which is centred round one scene. David Williams, an art critic has come to France to interview an outstanding painter Henry Breasley for his biographical and critical introduction to the book `The Art of Henry Breasley' which he is commissioned to write by the London publishing house. The extract represents the scene which takes place soon after David's arrival. The London visitor has half an hour at his disposal before he meets the painter and he takes an opportunity to look at Breasley's art gallery in his mansion.
The text falls into three passages which, as it were, constitute the scene of the acquaintance. The text opens with David's scrutinizing the painting in the big long room downstairs which looks like a museum or an art gallery. Such an impression is created by the credibility of the narration. `The silence of the house' and plenty of pictures to admire of famous masters of different art periods is like that of a museum.
The narrative method of the author is subtly intermingled with the character's inner reported speech. As a result the reader gets a vivid impression of the art displayed in Breasley's house and forms a notion of David Williams as a competent art critic. The author resorts to a realistic description, he gives the names of the artists (Derain, Permeke, Ensor, Marquet, Bonnard and many others), but the reader looks at the works of art through David's eyes. The description is not a mere enumeration of the names; it is a splendid personal evaluation of the paintings and drawings. As a professional critic David Williams assigns an art an exact descriptive adjective (very fine, characteristically febrile, splendid) to every work displayed. The omniscience of the author is manifest in his letting the character express his opinion freely and honestly by way of inner reported speech. David's surprise at finding such a wonderful collection of art works in a remote house in France is obvious. Fowles' masterful combination of literary English and colloquial idiom (how on earth had he got his hands on that?, ... would have cut throats, to lay their hands on) creates a vivid scene of the art critic's pleasure at meeting with real art and enjoying every minute of this meeting. We don't come across many instances of figurative speech in this passage apart from the above-mentioned epithets, which make the scene realistic and plausible.
The narrator brings home to the reader the idea that the owner of the collection is not only a talented well-known painter but a connoisseur of art as well. The latter holds true for the visitor who recognizes most of the works (`unsigned but unmistakably Dufy', `... must be an early Mattisse', etc.). The fact that he couldn't assign many paintings and drawings in Breasley's collection does not belittle David's expertise but manifests Breasley's various tastes in painting.
David, however, seems to be well-aware of the painter's family background and forms his own opinion about how Henry Breasley was able to collect such an outstanding and expensive art treasury (`he must have inherited quite a substantial sum when his mother died').
To sum up what has been said about the first passage of the text under study we must give due credit to the author, John Fowles, for his masterful portrayal of the characters done implicitly but convincingly. It is also noteworthy to mention that the narrator is a skilful master of composition - subtly and unobtrusively he creates suspense. Who would not feel tempted to see the owner of the house and the art collection now that the author delineated his portrait revealing some quite intriguing facts of his life?
Then the narrator passes on to the key episode of the text - David's scrutiny and artistic criticism of Breasley's painting `Moon-hunt'. It was `perhaps the best known of the Coëtminais oeuvre' by Breasley. Actually David has come to the painter's mansion Coëtminais to examine its every minute detail to produce an objective judgement of the painting. The passage represents a scrupulous description of the picture and manifests the author's profound knowledge of art which he displays through David's interpretation. Throughout the whole passage the third-person narration is intermingled with the critic's inner thoughts and we hear his voice, his judgements, his opinions of the famous painting. A slight irony on the part of the author is felt in the opening sentence `Breasley had granted himself pride of place and space', which adds to the delineation of the character's portrayal as a vain (probably even vainglorious) man. It sounds as if we could hear the old man's voice inciting the visitors to compare the works of the honoured painters in the gallery with his `oeuvre'.
Unlike the previous passage done in a rather unemotional mood (except two instances of David's personal remarks), here the author resorts to various syntactical and lexical means of emphasis. The text can be read on two different planes. On the one hand, it is a description of a professional detailed criticism of the work of art with adequately (aptly) chosen specific vocabulary (`previous iconography', `essential tension', `the mysteriousness and the ambiguity', `the modernity ... of the surface elements', `a clotted quality', `a distinct brusque use of impasto', `faintly too static on the whole', `a lack of tonal relief'). On the other hand, it is a wonderful piece of implicit character drawing of Henry Breasley, a talented, aging painter, egoistic, vain, stubborn by nature, contradictory in his attempts to follow the time-honoured traditions and, at the same time, to remain individual, unique, unrivalled and David's criticism of his picture `Moon-hunt'.
The success of Breasley's portrait is derived from the author's masterful use of a number of stylistic devices, both syntactical and lexical. The emotionality of the description of the big-sized picture is reached through David's reported speech which reveals his frank judgements of the great work of art.
Obviously the visitor is impressed by the painting but as a well-known art critic commissioned by the London publishing house to write an article about the painter he ought to be balanced and reserved in his writing. He can't but note the old painter's talent and hard work (`there was an obvious previous iconography of Uccello's Night Hunt'), and at the same time he seems to understand the old man's vanity to gain a place among the acknowledged masters, David has an eye for a piece of genuine art and he can see merits and imperfections of which he speaks at length.
This contradictory attitude of the critic to Breasley's work is exposed in a juxtaposition of lexically opposing elements (`a homage and a thumbed nose to a very old tradition'), in abundance of synonymous, antonymous or related words (`a challenged comparison, a deliberate risk', `challenged and defied', `deepened and buttressed', `the mysteriousness and the ambiguity'). The impression that David has a contradictory opinion of the painting is enhanced by a number of modal verbs and modal words (`couldn't be quite sure', `could stand quite nicely ...', `it could have been done', `obvious', `perhaps'), and by the precise use of vocabulary of opinion and evaluation (`in fact', `somehow', `a kind of', `something faintly too static', `in the whole', `yet', `faintly relieved', `thank you'), syntactical means also play an important role in rendering the emotional tone of the passage. Both in the author's narration and the character's inner speech the syntax is correct, precise; complex and compound sentences are long with various punctuation marks (commas, semicolons, colon, dashes, suspension points, italics, brackets, parenthesis).
In this respect the passage offers a good example of (inner) speech characterization of David, which helps the reader to penetrate into his inner thoughts when he freely and frankly expresses his opinion of the picture. It makes his character-drawing more complete and convincing. Let us look just at one sentence. `It gave an essential tension, in fact: behind the mysteriousness and the ambiguity (no hounds, no horses, no prey ... nocturnal figures among trees, but the title was needed), behind the modernity of so many of the surface elements there stood both a homage and a kind of thumbed nose to a very old tradition.' It abounds in syntactical expressive devices: two cases of parallelism of constructions, inversion, brackets, colon, suspension points. It subtly renders the flow of David's thoughts and a discerning reader can understand what profound ideas lie behind the words. Actually, in this single sentence the author, through the character's inner speech, renders his attitude both to the painter and the critic - the work of a talented master is worthy of note of an accomplished critic and a favourable admirer.
Though the passage contains no action, the author keeps hold of the reader's interest. Towards the end of the passage the emotional tension and suspense grows, it is created by the words `real mystery' which pertain to Breasley's age. Now that we know he painted his masterpiece at the age of sixty-nine we look forward to meeting him. Quite consistently the author interrupts David's reflections with a swift transition to a quite different style and tone of the narration.
The third passage of the selection presenting the direct description of the painter confirms the impression the reader gets previously. Henry Breasley who appears in the flesh looks very colourful in his pale blue trousers, a dark blue shirt with a red silk tie. Despite his old age the notorious painter moves energetically, speaks briskly and poses as a friendly host. This effect is achieved both syntactically and lexically. In terms of syntax the passage is written in shorter and simpler sentences than the previous one, which is in keeping with the author's message - to show an extraordinary character, abrupt, impetuous, and vital. J. Fowles skilfully uses epithets - white-haired (head), bulbous (nose), fastidious (mouth), small, trim (figure), searching (look), alert (attitude); colour words - pale blue, dark blue, red, white, faintly grey, grey-blue; direct speech in portraying the old man who does not want to succumb to his age. He exerts himself to seem younger, he dresses like an Oxford or Cambridge athletic student, he speaks colloquial English (`Don't be put off by the Mouse. She's slightly gaga' `that ghastly little Italian fudger') which makes a sharp contrast to David's inner speech in the previous passage.
Credit must be given to the author for his masterful and emotionally convincing delineation of the character. He employs both direct and indirect presentations so that the reader infers what the celebrated old master is like first from his art collection and his painting `Moon-hunt' (rather from the critic's evaluation of the picture), then through the author's direct description of the man and implicitly through the London visitor's impressions and Breasley's speech and behaviour when he welcomes the guest. As a result the protagonist emerges as a consistent, life-like, many-sided round character that arouses our interest. In conclusion it should be said that the three parts into which the selection falls (David's getting acquainted with the painter's art collection, his scrupulous assessment of the master's painting and Breasley's welcoming the London visitor), however different in form, style, tone, possess great intrinsic unity. Together they present a colourful portrayal of the two characters appearing in the passage. The author creates suspense which arouses the reader's interest and curiosity to read further.