VIKTORIJA KROMBHOLC i ARIJANA L. CVIJANOVIĆ University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Philosophy – Department of English Studies, Novi Sad DOI 10.5937/kultura1650115K UDK 821.111.09-31 Винтерсон Џ. originalan naučni rad WHAT­APPEARS­IS­NOT­WHAT­ IS:­JEANETTE­WINTERSON’S­ ART­&­LIES­AND­THE­PASSION Abstract:­It­would­be­no­mistake­to­state­that­among­the­commonest­ routes­ contemporary­ literature­ in­ English­ takes­ is­ one­ of­ asserting­ history’s­and­reality’s­fictionality­and­dissolving­the­boundary­between­ real­ and­ imaginary.­ The­ route­ is­ certainly­ common­ enough­ in­ the­ work­ of­ the­ controversial­ British­ author­ Jeanette­ Winterson,­ whose­ prose­is­a­never­ending­interplay­between­fact­and­fiction,­reality­and­ fantasy.­Winterson’s­critically­neglected­Art­&­Lies­(1995)­epitomises­ the­disintegration­of­clear­cut­lines­between­(auto)biography,­history­ and­fiction­through­a­set­of­binaries­like­art/life,­art/lie,­or­fact/fiction,­ transforming­our­ideas­of­truth­and­lie.­Similar­concerns­inform­The­ Passion­ (1987),­ which­ is­ more­ universally­ praised.­ The­ parallels­ between­ the­ two­ works­ suggest­ a­ continuum­ in­ Winterson’s­ literary­ explorations­ of­ the­ nature­ of­ truth­ and­ reality,­ the­ status­ of­ fiction­ and­historical­record,­and­the­usefulness­of­binaries­and­labels.­This­ paper­ aims­ at­ exploring­ how­ these­ polyphonic­ prose­ pieces­ rebel­ against­single­points­of­view,­redefine­the­notions­of­history­as­fact­and­ storytelling­as­fabrication,­and­exhibit­a­preference­for­the­truth­of­the­ imagination­and­unofcial­perspectives.­ Key­ words:­ Art­ &­ Lies,­ fiction,­ history,­ Jeanette­ Winterson,­ The­ Passion. For­ decades­ now,­ literature­ has­ been­ indulging­ in­ an­ “assault­ on­the­dividing­line­of­fiction­and­non­fiction”1,­resulting­in­a­ host­of­non­fiction­novels­or­faction­narratives,­autobiographical­ fiction­and­fictional­autobiographies,­as­well­as­other­hybrid­texts­ combining­fictional­and­non­fictional­resources.­This­tendency­ 1­ Cobley,­P.­(2001)­Narrative,­London­and­New­York:­Routledge,­p.­182. 115 VIKTORIJA KROMBHOLC i ARIJANA L. CVIJANOVIĆ goes­hand­in­hand­with­the­decline­of­grand­narratives­as­self­ perpetuating­ phenomena­ advertising­ their­ own­ truths,­ partly­ prompted­by­an­increased­interest­in­identity­politics.2­Although­ Jeanette­Winterson­does­not­wish­to­be­aligned­with­any­particular­ political­ agenda,­ her­ writing­ is­ imbued­ with­ open­ critique­ of­ metanarratives­ from­ a­ variety­ of­ standpoints,­ of­ which­ the­ feminist­and­the­lesbian­are­by­far­the­most­frequently­discussed.­ The­stridence­of­her­criticism­justifies­the­wide­spread­view­that­ Jeanette­ Winterson­ is­ arguably­ one­ of­ the­ most­ provocative­ British­authors­today,­well­known­for­her­“metanarrative,­self­ reflexive­texts­that­deconstruct­the­divisions­between­fact­and­ fiction,­reality­and­fantasy,­and­masculinity­and­femininity,­and­ rewrite­ intertextual­ references­ from­ the­ Bible­ to­ fairy­ tales”.3­ This­is­especially­true­of­her­writing­since­The­Passion­(1987),­a­ work­which­marks­a­shift­toward­“a­much­more­openly­fantastic­ and­lyrical­kind­of­fiction”.4­Both­The­Passion,­an­imaginative­ dance­between­history­and­storytelling,­and­Art­&­Lies­(1995),­ a­fragmented,­scattered­treatise­on­art,­history,­fiction­and­lies,­ to­name­but­a­handful­of­themes,­move­in­this­direction.­The­ one­critically­praised,­the­other­unjustly­discredited,­they­freely­ combine­fiction­and­non­fiction­to­undermine­the­metanarratives­ of­history,­science,­religion,­progress­and­patriarchy,­sometimes­ making­it­impossible­to­distinguish­between­fact­and­fabrication,­ truth­and­lie. Despite­the­richness­of­Winterson’s­oeuvre­only­hinted­at­in­the­ above­quote,­her­career­serves­as­testimony­to­the­sometimes­ taxing­“cultural­trend­towards­treating­writers­as­celebrities”.5­ Like­ Martin­Amis’s­ The­ Information­ (1995),­ her­ prose­ work­ Art­ &­ Lies­ suffers­ the­ fate­ of­ books­ by­ authors­ involved­ in­ media­ scandals,­ and­ is­ disregarded­ by­ critics­ primarily­ for­ reasons­outside­literature,­but­also­for­its­seemingly­“pretentious­ and­arty”6­nature.­Art­&­Lies­is­a­complex­and­sombre­piece,­ introduced­by­an­excerpt­on­the­nature­of­art­from­the­Oxford­ lectures­on­poetry­by­A.­C.­Bradley.­A­work­of­art­is­not­intended­ to­be­a­part­or­a­copy­of­the­real­world.­It­is­an­independent,­ complete­and­autonomous­world­in­itself­which­passes­its­own­ laws.­ Entrance­ is­ granted­ only­ to­ those­ who­ abide­ by­ these­ laws,­ leaving­ behind­ the­ beliefs­ and­ conditions­ of­ the­ other­ 2­ Ibid.,­pp.­183­189. 3­ Makinen,­M.­(2005)­The­Novels­of­Jeanette­Winterson,­Basingstoke:­Palgrave­ Macmillan,­p.­3. 4­ Onega,­ S.­ (2006)­ Jeanette­ Winterson,­ Manchester:­ Manchester­ University­ Press,­p.­54. 5­ Andermahr,­S.­(2009)­Jeanette­Winterson,­Basingstoke:­Palgrave­Macmillan,­ p.­40. 6­ Onega,­S.­op.­cit.,­p.­131. 116 VIKTORIJA KROMBHOLC i ARIJANA L. CVIJANOVIĆ world­ of­ reality.­ Winterson’s­ narratives­ at­ the­ intersection­ of­ modern,­postmodern,­feminist­and­lesbian­writing,­yet­eluding­ each­and­one­of­these­labels,­favouring­aesthetics­over­politics,­ historiographic­ metafiction­ over­ history,­ fantasy­ over­ realism,­ write­ their­ own­ rules­ and­ expose­ truths­ inherent­ to­ them.­ Art­ &­Lies­is­part­of­this­Blakean­effort­to­disintegrate­the­world­ we­live­in­and­create­new­ones,­“connected­to­the­reality­of­our­ desires”7­and­organised­around­the­principle­“[w]hat­appears­is­ not­what­is”.8­As­Handel,­the­single­male­narrator­in­Art­&­Lies,­ discloses­early­on,­“[i]t­could­be­that­this­record­set­before­you­ now­is­a­fiction”.9­The­record­is­offered­up­as­a­truth­in­itself­–­“I­ try­to­tell­the­truth,”10­says­Handel­–­which­is­why­it­only­could­ pose­as­fiction.­Such­statements­reveal­Handel’s­attempt­to­be­ a­contribution­to­the­subversion­typically­found­in­Winterson’s­ work,­“of­the­liberal­humanist­grand­narratives­of­Knowledge,­ Truth,­Meaning­and­History”.11 To­ question­ them,­ Art­ &­ Lies,­ Winterson’s­ most­ difficult,­ hermetic­ and­ inaccessible­ work,­ employs­ fantasy­ as­ “a­ social­ imaginary­ that­ does­ not­ offer­ a­ singular­ metadiscourse”­ and­ as­ a­ powerful­ “critique­ of­ contemporary­ desensitization­ and­ alienation”.12­ The­ fact­ that­ it­ is­ also­ one­ of­ her­ most­ poetic­ works­adds­to­this­critique­by­fighting­desensitisation­with­an­ abundance­of­poetic­images,­as­well­as­words­and­phrases­whose­ sound­contributes­to­the­meaning.­ “The­note­bells­the­beauty­of­the­stretching­train­that­pulls­ the­ light­ in­ a­ long­ gold­ thread.­ It­ catches­ in­ the­ wheels,­ it­ flashes­on­the­doors,­that­open­and­close,­that­open­and­close,­ in­commuter­rhythm.”13 We­shall­see­that­such­sentences­speak­of­a­style­which­creates­ a­strong­bond­between­body­and­word,­emphasising­“the­‘body’­ of­the­word­[…]­through­repetition­of­sounds­and­an­elaborate­ incorporation­of­rhythm”.14­The­heightened­lyricism­of­ Art­&­ Lies­represents­a­verbal­counterpart­of­the­composition­which­ inspired­the­structure­of­this­virtually­plotless­piece­of­fiction,­ Richard­Strauss’s­Der­Rosenkavalier,­and­its­poetic­flavour­is­ 7­ Burns,­C.­L.­(1996)­Fantastic­Language:­Jeanette­Winterson’s­Recovery­of­ the­ Postmodern­Word,­ Contemporary­ Literature­Vol.­ 37,­ No.­ 2,­ Madison:­ University­of­Wisconsin­Press,­p.­302. 8­ Winterson,­J.­(1995)­Art­&­Lies,­London:­Vintage,­p.­52. 9­ Ibid.,­p.­30. 10­Ibid.,­p.­32. 11­Andermahr,­S.­op.­cit.,­p.­19. 12­Burns,­C.­L.­op.­cit.,­pp.­286,­292. 13­Winterson,­op.­cit.,­p.­3. 14­Burns,­C.­L.­op.­cit.,­p.­280. 117 VIKTORIJA KROMBHOLC i ARIJANA L. CVIJANOVIĆ only­part­of­the­reason­why­this­work­is­denied­the­status­of­a­ novel.­Namely,­Winterson­avoids­using­the­term­to­refer­to­her­ works,­ preferring­ “fiction”,­ as­ she­ believes­ the­ novel­ belongs­ to­ nineteenth­century­ realism.­ In­ that­ sense,­ the­ novel­ is­ now­ dead­and­replaced­by­works­so­diverse­in­form­and­content­that­ they­lose­a­common­character.15­Hence,­this­highly­intertextual­ and­self­referential­work­is­defined­by­its­subtitle­as­“A­Piece­ for­Three­Voices­and­a­Bawd”,­with­alternating­and­overlapping­ voices­ of­ characters­ who­ represent­ transpersonal­ minds­ switching­from­first­person­narration­to­third­and­back.­ Art­&­Lies­therefore­partakes­in­questioning­the­status­of­fiction,­ or­more­specifically,­of­the­novel­as­form­and­genre,­through­the­ now­familiar,­yet­original,­slipping­across­the­border­between­ literature­and­(auto)biography.­Handel­is­and­is­not­the­famous­ composer,­Picasso­is­and­is­not­the­artistic­genius,­and­Sappho­ is­and­is­not­the­legendary­poet,­which­“effectively­erases­the­ difference­between­recollection­and­invention”,16­with­the­many­ transformations­of­gender,­voice­and­identity­complicating­the­ matter.­Winterson’s­treatment­of­history­as­a­fiction­illustrates­ her­ lack­ of­ belief­ in­ the­ truth­ of­ history17­ and­ prompts­ her­ to­ rewrite­ it­ through­ fictional­ symbols­ of­ arts­ –­ music,­ painting,­ and­literature­–­modelled­on­historical­figures.­Literature­is­no­ stranger­to­rearranging­and­remoulding­facts,­public­or­personal,­ and­in­an­interview­for­The­Guardian,­Winterson­comments­on­ the­need­to­“sacrifice­a­fair­bit­of­fact”­if­you­can­“tell­a­good­ story”,18­which­equally­applies­to­historical­and­autobiographical­ facts.­ Like­ the­ rest­ of­ her­ fiction,­ Art­ &­ Lies­ is­ certainly­ but­ unmeasurably­seasoned­with­numerous­details­from­Winterson’s­ life,­from­her­sexual­orientation­to­her­interest­in­the­life­stories­