Tightly Constructed Art

What is Simon doing in this book?

Simon Price does not serve any obvious purpose in the book.  That’s okay in a novel; a novel is a plastic form, and can absorb a great deal of irrelevancy.  Still, I wondered: does Simon serve any purpose at all in the story as a whole?

The story is about the council: Simon seems to be a distraction.  The story is about Krystal; Simon has no contact with her, or even any apparent awareness of her.  Does he have a role?

I would argue that Simon plays an extraordinarily important role in the novel.  He is a foil for Howard, clarifying the vacancy in Howard.

Simon is openly brutal.  He beats his wife and his children.  He has no discernible moral code.  He wants to get on the council because he believes that it provides opportunities for bribery.

Howard is not openly brutal like Simon, but does want to avoid taking any responsibility for the Fields.  When Oddo rapes Krystal in the Fields, there is no one around to do anything about it.  Oddo is not working for Howard; Howard is not responsible for the rape.  But Howard is partially responsible for the welfare of the people within the boundaries of the parish, and that includes the Fields.  If anyone should have become aware of the growing dangers in the Fields, and should have started thinking about steps the parish could take to protect innocent residents, it would be the parish council, headed by Howard.

Howard does not beat his children like Simon.  But Shirley has abused them, praising Miles ad nauseam and insulting Pat.  Miles is an emotional cripple, an adult who craves parental approval.  Pat is alienated, feeling unwelcome in her parents’ home.  Howard has overlooked the damage to his children. 

Howard has a code of behavior, but not a discernible moral code.  He does know what is proper and politic, but does not know what is moral.  His long-time neighbor and colleague, a political opponent perhaps but a neighbor, is dead.  His reaction? Well, it has its advantages; when can we meet for dinner?  At church, where the Lord said carefully and forcefully that you should not give preference to the rich over the poor, he pushes people aside to make room for his belly, and then saves seats for the rich.  But mostly, he is simply devoid of any sense that the poor are God’s children, and that morality demands care for them.

Howard is not on the council to take bribes like Simon, but he is on the council to be important.  He pays attention to constituents, but only the ones who don’t need protection.  His use of the council for his own benefit is not crude like Simon’s plans, but it is far deeper and more thorough.

Simon is in the book to clarify Howard.  There is nothing that Simon does that is worse than what Howard does.  But Howard is a hypocrite, and hypocrisy covers a multitude of improprieties.

To pound that point home, consider Pat again.  Her role in the book is like Simon’s; her existence is similarly a little puzzling.  She shows up in an expensive car, brings some wine for the party, fights with Mom, smokes outside with the teenagers a little, and then leaves.  What was that all about?  If she exists, it’s good she came to the 65^th birthday party, but why did Rowling invent her?  What is she doing in this story?

Shirley treats her daughter worse than Simon treats his son.  Simon beats his wife and Andrew, but they know that his violence has nothing to do with them.  By contrast, Shirley looks at Pat, considers Pat, thinks about how to address Pat’s lover – and decides to pretend she doesn’t exist.  Shirley deliberately and consistently depersonalizes Melly, and insults her daughter.  Shirley does not argue with her and agree to disagree; she dodges the topic genteelly, and turns her daughter into a pariah.  Simon insults Andrew, and calls him Pizza Face, but it isn’t really an attack on Andrew; rather, it’s rage in search of a target, and Andrew is handy.  What Simon does is destructive, and Andrew hates him; but Andrew is growing up fairly healthy and hopeful despite his dad.  But Shirley focuses on Melly, and considers her an unperson; she focuses on Pat, and considers her behavior unspeakable.  Shirley does not try and fail; she considers, and chooses annihilating silence.  Pat can survive, if she flees.  Simon’s attack looks worse than Shirley’s silence, because he spills blood.  But Simon is out of control, responding to impulses that have nothing to do with Andrew, while Shirley is focusing on Pat’s life and Pat’s decisions and Pat’s lover – and choosing annihilation.

It is Shirley who depersonalizes her daughter, not Howard; but Howard is complicit.  And – here’s the point – what Howard & Shirley do to Krystal and everyone in the Fields is the same thing that they had already done to their own daughter.  Dealing with their daughter could have, and should have, taught them to be empathetic, or at least tolerant.  But they didn’t learn the lesson dealing with Pat, and cannot apply the lesson to the people in the Fields. 

Howard does not seem to notice that he has turned his back on people in need.  If his conscience does not prod him, if he is simply blind, is he responsible for his destructive betrayal?  The answer is: look at the way he and Shirley dealt with Pat.  Shirley chose blindness.  Howard went along.  Then what Howard learned in the home, he applied in the town, and the people of the Fields pay the price.  So, yes, it is fair to hold him responsible for the vacancy of his heart.  He chose the destruction of his heart.

At first glance, Simon and Pat seem like sideshows in a sprawling novel, colorful but irrelevant, doodles on the edge of the canvas.  But this is a mistake; they are not sideshows.  The novel is as tightly constructed as any short story.  Simon is a foil, deepening our understanding of Howard.  Pat sharpens our understanding of Howard and Shirley, and makes the contrast with Simon much clearer.