THE BOY WHO COULD SEE DEMONS – CAROLYN JESS-COOKE

Share

Tweet

Share

Share

Email

Comments

The Boy Who Could See Demons by Carolyn Jess-Cooke
My rating: 4/5 cats

There’s an Irishman, an Englishman, and a Scottish bloke washing the side of a skyscraper. Every
day at lunchtime they sit on their balcony overlooking the city and eat their sandwiches. One day the Englishman opens his lunchbox and gets really angry. “Ham again!” he says. “If my wife packs me one more ham sandwich I’m going to throw myself off this balcony.” The Scottish bloke opens his lunchbox and finds a cheese sandwich. “Cheese sarnies again!” he says. “If my wife packs me one more cheese sarnie I’m going to throw myself off this balcony.” The Irishman opens his box and finds a tuna sandwich, and he threatens to throw himself off, too.

The next day, the Englishman opens his lunchbox and finds a ham sandwich. “That’s it,” he says, and he throws himself off the balcony.

The Scottish bloke opens his lunchbox and finds a cheese sandwich, and he throws himself off the balcony. The Irishman finds a tuna sandwich and shouts “you stupid woman!” before throwing himself off, too.

At the funeral, the English, Scottish, and Irish wives are consoling each other. “I thought he loved ham,” says the English wife. “And i thought my husband loved cheese,” says the Scottish wife. “I don’t understand it,” sobs the Irish wife. “He always packed his own lunch.”

this is now one of my favorite jokes. it does what i like my humor to do; contain a little truth and a little darkness. it is a perfect way to start off this impossible book review, as the book, which does indeed contain this joke, is very much preoccupied with the prevailing irish temperament, and the effects of the violence of northern ireland on the psyche of its inhabitants.

but, of course, i am also a bit hobbled. i feel like anything i write in this review is going to make a liar out of me, because of what this book is and isn’t. and that’s fine, but it does problematize my process.

again, it is about the effect that violence has on the behavior and development of children. here, the violence is specifically the residue of the violence in belfast just after the troubles, and the child is alex.

alex is a ten-year-old boy who sees demons. he has seen them since the day he learned his largely absent father was killed. his own personal demon, who is 9,000 years old and named ruen, has different forms with different temperaments and roles. sometimes he is in the form of an old man, sometimes a boy who looks like alex, sometimes a horned monster, and sometimes something worse. alex and his mother are very close and loving, despite living in poverty in deplorable conditions and subsisting solely on fried onions on toast. oh, and also her five failed suicide attempts. after her most recent attempt, alex is brought in to be examined by anya, a gifted therapist who has her own demons, in the form of her memories of a schizophrenic daughter who suicided right in front of her, and the helplessness she feels at not having been able to save her from herself.

naturally, the question of the book is whether alex is really seeing demons, or if they are a product of a mental disorder, or an overactive imagination or a defense mechanism. and also whether ruen is a positive force, helping him navigate the troubles of his life, or if he is bent on alex’s destruction.

you will have answers, but they might not be to the questions you were asking.

reading reviews of this on here, in order to see how other people avoided playing jumping games on landmines, i am utterly perplexed, because the complaints seem to completely ignore the ending of the book.

spoilers for real, seriously, and if you click this before you read the book i shall have to take you off the holiday card list. i know it is tempting to see me mock other people, but i promise i will entertain you in another way if you exercise restraint..

View Spoiler » because if, hello alex doesn’t exist, that means that his demons don’t exist either, you giant dummies. so it doesn’t matter how they know what they know because as alex encompasses “demons,” anya encompasses “alex” therefore anya encompasses demons. they know what she knows.

if a contains b and b contains c than a contains c. is transitive, motherfucker!

here:

The main problem is resolution – or lack of one. The central plot ambiguity is left unresolved- or at least: it is not explicitly resolved. There were many instances (Alex’s improbable knowledge; The old man who enters the piano room; the genius piece of written music etc) that pointed to an ontological instantiation of Ruen, but the author chose to emphasise a psychological explanation. Which, I’m sorry to say, spoiled the book for me. It felt hollow. I got the notion that she didn’t herself know which way to jump; and this thought was strengthened by the ‘author’s note’ at the end which suggested she had no overall plan for the book but that the plot arrived during the writing with the characters ‘surprising’ her by turns.

I feel it could have been a a really good book if it had gone the way of full psychological interpretation- however the teasing supernatural elements precluded this as there seems to be no rational explanation for them- there are no satisfying answers in the end.

first, shame on you for “ontological instantiation.” unnecessary. second, how much more of a “full psychological interpretation” do you need when the entire ending is a full psychological interpretation?? there is no way it could have been more psychological than having been MADE UP IN HER HEAD AS A COPING MECHANISM. what good are big words and abstract concepts if you have no reading comprehension?

the teasing supernatural elements precluded this as there seems to be no rational explanation for them

incorrect. they are the dreams, memories, and fantasies of someone who has a childhood history of delusions and psychosis and has been through a trauma in adulthood. there could not be a more “satisfying answer.”

another:

Unfortunately for all the brilliance of the premise and setting events this book falls flat. The climax reads more like a cheesy horror ending, and when the question of reality is finally answered we simply get a few pages of questioning thoughts from our realist psychiatrist. I would have no problem with a book like this ending ambiguously, however when answering a question like ‘do demons exist’ definitively, I feel there should be more exploration of this point, even just answering a few queries like, what are they up to?

what are they UP TO?? well, let’s see, they are up to being imagined by someone imagining someone imagining them. hows about that? good gravy, how is that in any way unclear? let me be more emphatic. in the world of this novel, they. do. not. exist. « Hide Spoiler

now i feel better.

so, where was i after all of that? oh, right, how to write this review.

so, anya begins treating alex under the assumption that his demons are a manifestation of his disordered life, witnessing violence, and having had to carry his mother through her perpetual grief. anya finds him to be wise beyond his years, articulate and affable, but also very lonely, having only his mother, his dog woof, and his demon for companionship. however, as the treatment continues, alex’s demons begin to share things with him that there is no way he could know: arcane theological concepts, accurate predictions of future events, complicated compositions for the piano with no musical training, and details from anya’s personal life. truth and reality get a little blurry, and will continue to do so until the very end.

the backdrop of this is the story of a theatrical modernization of hamlet, where alex has been cast as horatio. the play has been adapted to reflect irish political and religious unrest, but hamlet is also about ghosts and fathers and misguided violence, so it does serve to add some texture onto alex’s story which is mostly successful.

and i think that is all i want to say. i mean, i want to say loads and loads more, but i am being cautious. there were just fantastically bleak scenes and equally touching ones, and the characters felt fresh and believable. was the ending perfect and entirely appropriate? no, but it was surprising and solid enough that i am not squinting at its cracks. i thought it was spectacular, and i keep my minor “wait, but…”s to myself

i will say that for a first novel by a published poet, i was surprised to find it didn’t fall into that poetic-prose novel that seems to happen to a lot of authors who follow that path. it was remarkably grounded and direct and not so purple. i will absolutely read more books by her, should the opportunity arise.

read my reviews on goodreads