After the Great Revelation, the angry response, and the turning
on the heel to walk away from the still enigmatic but now seemingly flawed
Sarah, Charles takes himself off to an empty church and does what I do frequently:
He splits himself into two people, an upper and a lower self,
and then engages in a discourse in the hope of coming to a New Revelation at
the end of the argument. (In my case, the upper self usually takes the form of
something like an Isis figure; in Charles’s, it’s the figure of Jesus hanging
on a cross a little way beyond the rood screen. Changing times, I suppose.)
And then, just like me, he finds the New Revelation. He
presumes insight into Sarah’s mind and motive, and knows that her motive was
entirely honourable: she was merely using deceit as a means of showing him the
love he had for her – to which knowledge he was a stranger, courtesy of the
rigid class system and a rich, pretty young bride-to-be called Earnestina. Unfortunately,
Charles appears to be overlooking something, as those of us who have
revelations are wont to do:
Sarah’s deceit had been to tell Charles that she had
disgraced herself with the French lieutenant. He now 'knows' that she lied in order to provoke sympathy and reveal the latent sense of connection
in him. But this doesn’t explain why she made the story of her disgrace a
matter of public knowledge in Lyme long before Charles came on the scene. If
this were me, I would find a way round the objection (in fact, I already have.)
In Charles’s case, time will tell. Less than 100 pages to go.
But here’s something a little perplexing: As Charles is exulting
in his realisation that he can have Sarah after all, we come across the following
sentence:
Another scene leapt
unbidden into his mind: Lady Bella faced with Sarah.
Who is Lady Bella? I recall no character of that name
being heretofore mentioned. Who is she, and why does she suddenly appear as an
adversary whom Sarah will handle better than Earnestina could? This is a
damnably odd coincidence, and like all damnably odd coincidences, it’s probably
entirely meaningless. But it’s still damnably odd.
No comments:
Post a Comment