Feb 15, 2025 10:26 PM
When I was 16 or 17 we read Catch-22 in English class and because I was a 16 or 17 year-old boy — and because it's brilliant — I loved it. My enthusiasm must have been palpable because my teacher gave me a copy of J.G. Farrell's The Siege of Krishnapur, set in a fictional colonial outpost during the Indian Rebellion (or "Mutiny" as she would have said) of 1857, and suggested I do a compare-and-contrast on the two novels. I probably wrote about how a rich vein of black-comic absurdity runs through both of them, and how they're both about people going mad in confined spaces — an army base in one, a colonial cantonment in the other — in the midst of death and indecency. I probably didn't make much of Siege's discussion of the nature of civilisation and the relative worth of faith and reason, words and deeds, and definitely not of its unflinching post-mortem of the (British) colonial project. (Incidentally I think Catch-22 can also be read through a colonial lens). I don't remember being quite as smitten with Siege as with Catch back then, perhaps because it forwent the cartoon anarchy and balls-to-the-wall yank attitude of the latter in favour of a more phlegmatic, British kind of humour. But I did enjoy it, and doing so made me feel grown-up in a way a book hadn't before.
Since then I've read each of Farrell's so-called "Empire trilogy" — of which Siege is the second and shortest — twice, and I'm convinced that his misadventurous death at 44 (slipped on rocks while angling) deprived English lit. of an unknown but non-zero number of masterpieces. I love his controlled raconteurism, his way of as if he were sitting by you telling you his story without any intermediate bookish artifice. This isn't to say that his prose is ordinary or plain, just that it's always a medium, never the message itself. It takes courage, I think, to write this kind of prose, but it brings a detachment to the narrative that's essential for its overarching irony, verging on mordancy, to be effective. Irony is Farrell's principal mode; he delights in all kinds of irony, especially unsubtle ones. and both evolve into siege-type situations, too, but it's here that all the glorious gradual disintegrations of dignity — disease, distress, dirt, famine — that go with being besieged are displayed to their fullest.
The broader canvases of Troubles and The Singapore Grip allow for more character development, but even in the course of the relatively punchy Siege we see one character lose his faith in reason (or at least in progress, civilisation, "ideas" as the Collector dismisses it all in the story's coda) while another, the fresh-off-the-boat Fleury, is perversely transformed by the barbarous crucible of the siege from a moon-faced dreamer into an emblem of Victorian (Christian) rationality who tinkers fondly with an experimental 15-barrelled pistol. This is one of the ironies of Empire, and especially of its chief architects the Victorians, that interests Farrell — how its tenet of divine providence, of the White man's dominion over God's creation, was antithetical to the original Garden of Eden setup. Faith trumps reason when the senior of the camp's two doctors, vehement in his erroneous espousal of an airborne vector for cholera, wins most of the population to his side in his debate with the logical, softer-spoken, Scottish, and correct Dr McNab through a combination of his seniority, Englishness, and vehemence. But reason (or at any rate civilisation and "ideas") trumps faith when an electro-metal head of Shakespeare, detached from a statue and shot from a cannon, takes out a swath of besiegers:
"...it had scythed its way through a whole astonished platoon of sepoys advancing in single file through the jungle. The Collector suspected that the Bard's success in this respect might have a great deal to do with the ballistic advantages stemming from its baldness."
Keats's lavishly-coiffured noggin fares less well, and Voltaire's only succeeds in jamming the gun.