Mapping the Text of Lilith: MacDonald’s Labyrinths and ... · PDF fileMapping the Text of Lilith: MacDonald’s Labyrinths and Gardens Kaitlyn Dryer A bstract Readers of fiction

Mapping the Text of Lilith: MacDonald’s Labyrinths and Gardens

Kaitlyn Dryer

Abstract Readersoffictionfollowtheplotofanovelasthoughwalkingalabyrinth,withnoactualopportunityofturningfromthewrittenpath,unlessoneisreadinganovelsuchasChrisWare’sBuilding Stories(2012),agraphicnovelthatdefiestheconventionalreadingexpectations.However,fictionalsohastheeffectofevokingafullergardenlikeworldasthereaderimaginativelyfillsingapsleftbythenarrative.InGeorgeMacDonald’sLilith,theprotagonistMr.Vaneentersafantasticalworldwherehemustoftendefinethingsintermsofwhattheyarenot.ThewordnotsignalsforksinthenarrativelabyrinthasVanechoosestodoonethingandnotanother,oftenfrustratingreader.Hispoorchoicesleadustodesiregreateragencyinchoosingpaths.ThetwoworldsMacDonalddescribesarenotseparatebutexistinthesamespacewithadifferentsetofdimensions,withVane’spersonallabyrinthofchoicesmediatingbetweenthemundaneworldinwhichhestilllivesandthespiritual,allegoricalworldhestrivestocomprehend.Throughthelabyrinthofhistext,MacDonaldsuggestsasimilarrelationshipexistsforreadersbetweenthelabyrinthoftheirlivesandthegardenheencouragesustobelieveinandbegintoseebyreadinghisnovel.MacDonald’srelationshiptoLewisCarrollhighlightstherelationbetweenthelabyrinthinenatureoffictionandthegardenlikerenderingthatreadersofatextproduce.Whilethegardenlikeandlabyrinthinecouldbeanalyzedinanynarrative,theyareparticularlyaptmodesforanalyzingMacDonald’sfantasy,whichisbothdeeplyrootedinthehistorical,Christianconceptsoflabyrinthandgarden,anddidactic,seekingtochangethewayitsreadersperceivetheirworld.

Introduction GeorgeMacDonald’sfairytalesandfantasynovelscreatedafoundationformodernfantasy,influencingThe Lord of the Rings,andinspiringC.S.LewistowriteThe Chronicles of Narnia.MacDonaldpublishedhisfinalfantastynovel,Lilith,in1895.WhataboutMacDonald’sfantasygivesitlastingimpact?

North Wind 31 (2012): 65-94

InLilith,theprotagonistisarathergenericmannamedMr.Vane,whohasjustinheritedtheancestralhomehebarelyremembershavinglivedinasachild.Aftermovingintothehouse,Vanemeetsthefamily’slibrarian,Mr.Raven,whomhefollowsupstairsandthroughamirrorintoafantasticalworld.Thisjourney,thefirstoffive,servesasthebeginningofVane’sspiritualeducationashecomestounderstandhisworldthroughtheexperienceofanotherone.Heencountersconflicting—orwhatseemfromhisperspectivetobeconflicting—circumstances,includingMr.Raven’sstrikinglydisparateidentitiesasalibrarian,abird,andthebiblicalAdam.Mr.Raven’seaseoftransitioningbetweentheseidentitiesenableshimtoserveasaguideinmorewaysthanone:besidesguidingVaneandreadersbetweenworlds,healsoguidesusbetweenidentities.Vane’snameconnotesbothhisvanity,andhisbeing,likeaweathervane,changeableandeasilyblownoffcourse.Hischangeabilitymakeshimvulnerable,asitislargelyoutsidehiscontrol,butitalsohelpshimalongthepathofacceptinghishumanidentitybycounteringhisvainambitionsofheroism. Intheworldontheothersideofthemirror,VaneencountersLilith,theangelwhoaccordingtoHebrewtraditionwasthefirstwifegiventoAdam.1Bothphysicallyasatemptressandsymbolicallyasatemptingalternativetogrowinginfaithandgraduallyunderstandinghisidentity,sheistheantagonistobstructingVane’sjourney.Herprimaryfaultisinsistingondefiningherselfratherthanacceptingherselfasshewascreated.Lilithfixesuponasingleidentity,believingthatshecanmakeitpermanentlyhers.Assuch,hergoalistomurderheronlydaughter,Lona,whomsheseesasathreattoherimmortalityandunchangingeternalbeauty.However,herchoiceispremature:bycuttingofftheprocessofdiscoveringheridentityandtryingtocutoffherbloodline,shemissestheultimatevisionoftheselfintendedforherbyGod,theinherentselfthatshewouldeventuallyhavecometoknow.Yetherpowerlessnesseventostoptransitionatthepointshehaschosenisevidencedbyagrowingblackspotonherside:Lilithcannotpreservethephysicalbeautythatshehaschosenovergraduallyincreasingwisdomandself-knowledge.Thespotservesasaconstantreminderofhererror,causingherpride,herconscience,andherbodytosuffer.WiththehelpofAdam’sseconddaughter,Mara,thissufferingeventuallyleadsLilithtowardthehopeofredemption. Attheendofthenovel,abook/doorclosesbehindVaneandhefindshimselfpushedbackintohisownworld.ThepointofMr.Vane’sjourneyisnotthathelearntoperceivebothworldssimultaneously,butratherthathe

66 | Dryer

Mapping the Text of Lilith 67

returntohisownworldwithknowledgegainedfromtheotherandbeliefinadivineworldorderingbothofthem,aworldhehasstillbarelybeguntoimagine.Fromadidacticstandpoint,hislessonhappensforthereader’sbenefit.Readersimaginativelyenvisionanotherworldwhilereading—fromreadingChristianfantasytoentertainingbeliefinatheologicalworldsuchasMacDonaldproposes.Readersnaturallytendtocomeawayfromfictionseeingtheirownworldinanewlight.MacDonaldrecognizesandbuildsuponthiseducationalqualityoffictionbyusingspecifictechniquestodiscouragereadersfromreturningwithoutreconsideringtheirworldbasedontheirreadingexperience.First,hegivesreaderssomenarrativedistancefromtheprotagonist,promptingustocriticizeVane’sdecisionsandimagineotherroutes.ThechoicesVanemakesinbothworldsoftenfrustratereaders,andtheyevenfrustrateVanehimselfashelooksback.Henarrateseverythinginthepasttense,analyzinghisactionsandmoralizing.Then,asifthatwerenotenoughforcontemporaryreaderstoswallow,MacDonaldhasMr.RavenstandingbytocriticizeVaneandmakeeveryattempttoguidehiminrightpaths,whichVanerarelychooses. Thefrustrationthatmanyreadersfeelalertsustothepresenceofimportantfactorsthatmakefantasywork,suchastherelationbetweenthereader’ssenseofparticipationoragencyandtheprotagonist’schoices.ArecentcollectionofessayseditedbyLucasHarriman—Lilithin a New Light—has15scholarsgrapplingwiththefrustrationthenovelenvokes.Vane’serror-filledjourneyinfluenceshisperceptionandbehavior,leadinghimtobelieveinworldsofendlesslyrichpossibilitiesthattranscendthewallsofhismundaneworld,existinginandthroughit.Readersoperatefromaperspectiveoutsideofthatoftheirunreliablenarrator;nevertheless,theyembarkonaparalleljourney.Inthecourseofthenovel,theirsensesofidentityandperceptionshifttomakeroomforMacDonald’sframeworkofinterrelatedrealitiessothat,atthecloseofthenovel,theyhavebeenintroducedtoanewwayofseeingthattheycanalsouseinlife.

Gardens and their Rendering GardensrecallingtheparadisicalGardenofEdenappearofteninliterature.InLiliththeyofferavaluablewayofinterpretingtherelationbetweenVane’sworldandthefantasticalworldthatMr.Ravenguideshimtoexplore.InSaving Paradise,astudyoftheevolutionofChristianpracticeandtheology,RitaBrockandRebeccaParkerexplainthat“earlyChristianparadisewassomethingotherthan‘heaven’ortheafterlife.Ourmodern

68 Dryer

viewsofheavenandparadisethinkofthemasaworldafterdeath.However,intheearlychurch,paradise—firstandforemost—wasthisworld,permeatedandblessedbythespiritofGod”(Brockxv).ThehistoryofthegardenasaChristiansymbolhasparticularresonanceforreadersofLilithbecausethespiritualroutethatMacDonaldpresentsforVaneandforreadersalikeinvolvesthesamestepstowardunderstandingofidentityandperception.Vanemustlearntorecognizeparadiseinhisownworldbeforehecanconceiveofresurrectionintoanotherparadise. ThesecondtimeVanejourneysintothefantasticalworld,hehappenstostepoutintoagarden.There,VanemeetscharactersfromtheGardenofEdenstory,includingAdamandEve,alittleserpenthidinginthebranchesofatree,andLilith.HealsomeetsagroupofcharactershecallstheLittleOnes,whostilllivespirituallyandpsychologicallyintheGardenofEden.Atthesametimeandplace,hemeetscharacterswhoareexperiencingHell,whichindicatesthatthejourneybetweenVane’sworldandthisoneisnotasimplereturntoEdenbutsomethingmorecomplex.LikeHell,Edenisnotasingle,physicalplacethatcanbeuniversallyexperienced.Rather,theperspectivesandperceptionsofthosewhohaveorhavenotfallendefinetheirworlds. FromwhatevidenceVanerecordsoftheirperception,weassignChristiansignificancetotheverydifferentwaysheandothercharactersexperiencethefantasticalworld.FortheLittleOnes,theworldisinfacttheGardenofEden.Theyeatgood,littleapplesandavoidbig,bad,greenones.Theoneswhoavoidbadapplesnevergrowup.MeanwhileLilith,herconsorttheShadow,andvariousothercharactersonMr.Raven’ssideofthemirror,perceiveandexperienceHell.Theyrecoilfromthingsthatothersfindrefreshing,likethewarm,healingriver.Fromtheirperspective,thesameworldoperatesunderadifferentsetoflawsandassumptions.C.S.LewislaterdescribedHellinmuchthesamewayinThe Last Battle.Aftertheirdeaths,unbelievingcharactersinLewis’novelremaintrappedinapersonalHell,annoyedbythehappinesssurroundingthem.Vane,forhispart,experiencesneitherEdennorHell,butthefallenworld,onbothsidesofthemirror.Becausehumanityhasfallen,VanecannolongerexperiencetheGardenofEden,butthatdoesnotpreventhimfromcomingtobelieveinitsexistence. ThecharactersfromtheGardenofEdenstoryarenotstaticbeingsthatonceexistedbutspiritualfigureswithwhomVanecaninteract.NordoesVaneeverstepintotheroleofalarger-than-lifeorbetter-than-humanheroicfigure.Vanelacksgrandcosmicordivinesignificance,yethehaspersonalinteractionwithfiguressuchasAdam’sdaughters,LonaandMara,


andhisdecisionsinfluencethecourseofeventsthattakeplacewhileheisintheirworld.Despitehisprofesseddislikeforallegory,MacDonaldhascreatedinVaneanEveryman.MeanwhileLona,thedaughterofAdamandLilith,isavibrantallegoricalrepresentationofpureLove.Simultaneouslymotherandchild,LonacaresfortheLittleOnesandliveswiththeminastateoftotalinnocence.Adam’sseconddaughter,Mara,whosemotherwasEve,canbeidentifiedallegoricallyas“Suffering.”KnownastheLadyofSorrow,sheweepsforthosewhosuffer,butshealsoadvocatessufferingasthepathtoredemption.JustasVanecouldreallybeanyone,LonaandMara,whilecontainingallegoricalsignificance,arealsoveryrealpeople.ThroughLona,VanelearnsabouttheGardenandgainsasenseofhowtheLittleOnesexperienceit,andMacDonaldsuggeststhatlovecanbringhumansclosertoexperiencingparadiseortheworldbeforethefall.ThroughMara,Vanelearnshowtointerpretandgrowfromexperiencesinafallenworld,andMacDonaldsuggeststhatsufferingcausedbyrecognitionoferrorisbothbeautifulandproductive,reorientingtheself,allowingrepentance,andbeginningthejourneytowardagreaterparadisethantheonethatwaslost. WhileparadiseinthesenseoftheGardenofEdenandparadiseinthesenseofHeavenarenotthesamething,believinginoneisakeysteponthewaytogainingaccesstotheother.InoneofMacDonald’sprimaryinfluencesinthewritingofLilith,Dante’sDivine Comedy,Edenservesasawaypointonthejourneytotrueparadise.RobertPogueHarrisonwritesin“Gardens:anEssayontheHumanCondition”thatDantehasadesireforsomethingbeyondwhatEdenhastooffer:“Itisadesireforecstasy,notserenity;forself-transcendence,notself-possession;forheaven,notEden.AsDantedepictsit,beatitudeisnotahomeostaticstateofreconciliationbutadynamic,intoxicatingprocessofself-surpassing”(144).InMacDonald,aswellasinDante,thereisasenseoffelix culpa.Forhumanity,Edenisnottheanswer,butrathersomethingessentialtounderstandbeforeHeavencanbegintobeconceivedof.UponmeetingtheLittleOnes,Vaneimmediatelylovesthem.However,facedwiththeLittleOnes’innocence,theirstuntedgrowth,andtheirseemingvulnerability,Vanealsowantstochangethembyimprovingtheirminds,theirphysicalabilities,andtheirrangeofexperience.Werecognize,asdoesVaneinalimitedway,thathecannotsharetheirperceptionandmaybewronginthinkingtheyneedhelp;nevertheless,weseefromhishumanperspective—andevenMr.Ravenagrees—thattheirsituationisstillfarfromideal.ForMacDonald,asforDante,thegardenthatstillexistsonearthandcanshimmerthroughVane’slibrarywallsifhelooksjusttheright

wayisnotaheavenoutsidethelabyrinthbutanEdeninandthroughit.

MacDonald and Carroll Amongcontemporarywriters,MacDonaldwasnotaloneinwritingenticingglimpsesofagardenintohisfantasticalworld.In1862,hisfriendLewisCarrollhadshownhimamanuscriptcalledAlice’s Adventures Under Ground,askingforhisopinionbeforegivingittoayoungfriend.AlreadythestorythatwoulddevelopintoAlice in WonderlandcontainedAlice’sjourneydowntherabbitholeandintoanotherworld,itspuzzlesinvolvingsizeandidentity,thelovelygarden,andthenightmarishQueenofHearts.MacDonaldandhisfamilyreadthemanuscripttogetherandpraisedithighly,encouragingCarrolltoaddmorepartstothestoryandgetitpublished(Mendelson33).Inresponse,CarrolladdedtheHatter,theMarchHare,andtheCheshireCat.LikeMacDonald,CarrollwrotefromaChristianideologicalperspective.ThetwoauthorssharedaformofChristianityunorthodoxinitscertaintythateveryone,eventhedevil,willeventuallyacceptsalvationandbereunitedwithGod.Carroll’s“EasterGreeting,”firstaddedtoAlicein1876,placesthereligiousor“solemn”alongsidetheplayful“fairytale”(58).UnlikeMacDonald,however,CarrolldoesnotdirectlyincorporateChristianideologyintohistales.Hisgarden,thoughenticing,isnotEden;itisjustagarden. Alice in WonderlandisahighlypersonaltalethateveninitsmostfantasticalpartsbasesitsconceptsofidentityandperceptionoftheworldonCarroll’sfriendshipwiththeactualgirlforwhomhismanuscriptwasintended,AliceLiddell.“SomeofCarroll’sjokescouldbeunderstoodonlybyresidentsofOxford,andotherjokes,stillmoreprivate,couldbeunderstoodonlybythelovelydaughtersofDeanLiddell,”explainsMartinGardner,editorofThe Annotated Alice(7).Since“TheMadTeaParty”wasoneoftheepisodesCarrollwroteuponMacDonald’ssuggestionthatheexpandandpublishAlice’s Adventures Under Ground,itispossiblethattheHatter’squestion“Whyisaravenlikeawritingdesk?”wassomethingofaprivatejokebetweenthetwoauthors.WhetherornotCarrollhadMacDonaldinmindwhenheimaginedtheHatterandhisunansweredriddle,thereareseveralnotableconnectionsbetweentheAliceof1865andLilith,whichMacDonaldwouldpublishthirtyyearslater.

The Raven: Guiding Identity through Transition InbothAlice in WonderlandandLilith,themaincharacter’sjourney

70 | Dryer


beginswithgreatconfusionofidentity.ForbothAliceandVane,theliminalexperienceofmovingbetweenworldsremovesthemfromthecertaintyandstabilitysurroundingtheirformersocialrolesandcausesthemtoquestionwhotheyreallyare.Theythenseektorediscoverthemselvesinthecourseofthesocialinteractionsthatfollow.Aliceexpandsandshrinksphysicallyandfindsherselfunabletorepeatoldsongsandlessons.Inthisnewworld,thewordshavechangedandgiventhesongsanothermeaning,whichdisorientsher,teachingherthatevenwhatshethoughtsheknewisnotastablemeansofdefiningherself.Likewise,Mr.Vaneforgetshisformertitleandnameandfindshisformerstudiesofmetaphysicssuddenlyuseless,withtheoldlawsreplacedbyseemingnonsense.(Seethecomparisonbelow.)

Thesimilaritiesbetweenthesetwoscenescouldhaveoccurredcoincidentallyaseachauthorsoughttodescribethedisorientingpsychologicaleffectofliminalexperience(movingbetweenselvesandworlds).However,MacDonald’sknowledgeofAliceandclosefriendshipwithitsauthorpointtowardadeeperconnection.Alice’sconversationwiththeCaterpillarexistedinthemanuscripthefirstshowedtoMacDonaldandhischildren,Alice’s Adventures Under Ground.Thatthedialogueappears,unaltered,inAlice’s Adventures in Wonderlandsuggeststhatthefamilyfounditdelightfulandeffective.WhenMacDonaldlateremploysthesamesortoflogicalwordplayconcerningidentity,hecertainlydrawsfromCarroll. Vane’swindingjourneytowardunderstandingidentitycontinues

'WhoareYOU?'saidtheCaterpillar.

Thiswasnotanencouragingopeningforaconversation.Alicereplied,rathershyly,'I—Ihardlyknow,sir,justatpresent—atleastIknowwhoIWASwhenIgotupthismorning,butIthinkImusthavebeenchangedseveraltimessincethen.'

'Whatdoyoumeanbythat?'saidtheCaterpil-larsternly.'Explainyourself!'

'Ican'texplainMYSELF,I'mafraid,sir'saidAlice,'becauseI'mnotmyself,yousee.'--Alice in Wonderland, page67

[Mr.Raven:]"Ifyouknowyouareyourself,youknowthatyouarenotsomebodyelse;butdoyouknowthatyouareyourself?Areyousureyouarenotyourownfather?—or,excuseme,yourownfool?—Whoareyou,pray?"

[Mr.Vane:]IbecameatonceawarethatIcouldgivehimnonotionofwhoIwas.Indeed,whowasI?ItwouldbenoanswertosayIwaswho!ThenIunderstoodthatIdidnotknowmyself,didnotknowwhatIwas,hadnogroundsonwhichtodeterminethatIwasoneandnotanother.AsforthenameIwentbyinmyownworld,Ihadforgottenit,anddidnotcaretorecallit,foritmeantnothing,andwhatitmightbewasplainlyofnoconsequencehere.

--Lilith,page14

72 Dryer

throughoutthenovel.RogerSchlobinwritesthatheistroubledbyMr.Vane’scontinuinglackoforientation:“Atboththebeginningandtheend,ifnotthroughout,Vaneisconstantlyintransition—notbeing,notbecoming,andnotbeen.Heneverachievesastateofbeingorastasis”(84).WhatSchlobinseesasproblematic,perhapsnihilistic,isexactlytheliminalstateofpersonalitythatwriterandprofessorBarbaraHurddescribessoecstaticallyinherbookStirring the Mud: On Swamps, Bogs, and the Human Imagination.Transitionisthetruestateofhumanidentity,Hurdargues,herperspectivematchingthatofMacDonaldandofmodernsocialpsychologistsaswell,whoproposethatindividualhumanidentityandperceptionoftheworlddevelopthroughsocialinteraction.“Whoweareinsideandwhatwesharewithothersarebothassembledinthepracticeofeverydaylife,”explainsJamesHolstein,editorofInner Lives and Social Worlds(13).WhenVaneistakenoutofhisdailylifeandplacedinnew,unfamiliarterritory,hisfirstinstinctistoseekoutotherslikehim.Byinteractingwithotherhumanshecanconstructatemporarysocialroleforhimselfandskirttheuncomfortableissueofwhetherhehasadeeper,stable,inherentidentity.Indoingso,VanerisksfollowingLilith’sexamplebyrefusingtransitionandtryingtoremainpermanentlyinasinglesocialidentity.DuringhisadventuresinMr.Raven’sworld,however,Vaneinteractswithandlearnsfromcharacterswhohavedrasticallydifferentperspectivesfromhisown,andhisidentityremainsintransition. InadditiontoVane’slackofstaticidentity,SchlobincomplainsaboutMr.Raven’s“refusal(orinability)toexplicateorstabilize”(84),somethingHurdassuresuswecannotdo.AccordingtoHurd,“Weareshape-shifters,allofus,liquidmosaicsofmutableandtransienturges,andwegiveourselvesheadacheswhenwepretendotherwise,whenwestiffenourselvesintopermanentandseparateidentitiesunsulliedbythedriftingslop,theveryrealambiguitiesofourselvesandtheworld”(73).Evenintheseeminglyunhazardousactofreadinganovel,weexposeourselvestothepossibilitythatweandourworldsmaychange,andthatisagoodthing.Asreaders,ifourfunctionalidentitiesweren’tinflux,readytomold,atleasttemporarily,totheperspectivesanauthorcreatesforus,readingfantasywouldbeadull,abstract,andhighlyirrelevantexperience. Mr.Ravenshiftsfrequentlybetweenhishumanformasalibrarianandthebirdformthatfitshisname.HeadvocatesthatVanelearntodothesame,explainingthat“everyone,asyououghttoknow,hasabeast-self—andabird-self,andastupidfish-self,ay,andacreepingserpent-selftoo—which


ittakesadealofcrushingtokill!Intruthhehasalsoatree-selfandacrystal-self,andIdon’tknowhowmanyselvesmore—alltogetintoharmony.Youcantellwhatsortamanisbyhiscreaturethatcomesoftenesttothefront”(30).ThatMr.Ravenincludesaserpent-selfinhislistofeveryman’sselvessuggestsanotherlayertotheexperienceofEden:forMacDonald,theGardenandthecharactersoftheEdenstoryareactivepartsofindividualhumanidentityinadditiontobeingactivebutunseenaspectsoftheworldinwhichwelive.WhileweneverseeVanephysicallyshiftforminthewayMr.Ravendescribes,perhapsitisonlythatonVane’sandthereforeoursideofthemirror,formisnotasfluidasidentity.Mr.RavencannotguideVanetophysicallyshape-shift,norcanhehandVanehisownperspectiveorsomeoneelse’sidentity.Withtime,however,hecanconvinceVanethathisperceptionoftheworld,onbothsidesofthemirror,isatoncetrueandnottheonlytruth.Likewise,Lilithcannothandustheexperienceofanearthlyparadiseoranyothergarden.ThoughitprovidesawayofunderstandingMacDonald’stheology,itcannotprovebylogictheaccuracyofhisviewpoint.Whatitcandoisallowustocomprehendthroughfictional,simulatedexperiencethatasreadersinthespaceoffiction,weinhabitalabyrinth.Becomingconsciousofoursituationinthiswaymakesusmoreconsciousofidentity.Ifweknowthatourperspectiveislimitedbywalls,werealizethereismoretobeunderstoodthanwhatwearecapableofperceiving.

Historical and Narrative Labyrinths Perspectiveislimitedinafallenworld.Alabyrinthofknowledgedefinesrulesandperceptions.WallsobscureourviewofEden.Formandmeaningdonotalwayscoincide.Inhis1893essay“TheFantasticImagination,”MacDonaldwrote,“IfIcannotdrawahorse,IwillnotwriteTHISISAHORSEunderwhatIfoolishlymeantforone.Anykeytoaworkofimaginationwouldbenearly,ifnotquiteasabsurd”(10).Withouteversaying,“Thisisalabyrinth,”MacDonaldallowedthelabyrinthinenatureoffictiontosurfaceinLilithviaanalysisofMr.Vane’schoices.Asfantasybasedinareligiousideology,hisworkreachesbeyonditselftoreflectonhumanexperienceoftheworld.Itimpliesthatthelabyrinthinewayinwhichfictionworksalsoappliestothelivesofhisreadersoutsideoftheworldofhisnovel. Alabyrinth,orsystemofintricate,windingpathswithadistinctcenter,canbeidentifiedbyitspsychologicaleffects:confusion,lossofdirection,anddesiretoreachthecenteror,moreoften,toescape.However,

74 Dryer

basedontheearliestvisualdepictions,thelegendaryCretanlabyrinthwouldhavebeenunicursal,havingonlyonepath(SeeFigure1.)AngusFletcher,anauthorityonallegoryandthefictionalrepresentationofthought,explainsin“TheImageofLostDirection”thatapersoninthelabyrinth“canchooseonlytokeepmovingortostop,movinginwardsoroutwards;andhecanchoosetostopatthecentre,staythereforever,andrefusetocomebackoutfromthatpoint.Ineffectthesetwochoicesreducetoonechoice:hemustdecidewhetherornottokeepmoving”(335).LikesomeoneenteringtheCretanlabyrinth,areaderhasalmostnocontrolovertheroutehetakesthroughtheworldpresentedinanovel.Hecanchoosetokeepreading,ortostop,and—luckilyforhim—hehasanotherworldtoreturntowhenhestops,asopposedtoperpetualimprisonment. Becauseofthewindingsofthesinglepath,ifatravelerstopsmidwaythroughthelabyrinth,shemayloseanysenseofbackwardandforwarddirection.Alternatively,Fletchersuggeststhatwithoutalinktosomethingorsomeoneoutsidethelabyrinth,humansarenecessarilylost.Healsoarguesforthenecessityofafourthdimension,time,fordeterminingone’sprogressandpositioninaunicursallabyrinth.Inanalysisofnarrativestructures,thetermlabyrinthmustreferbothtoasinglepathandonehavingmanybranches,becauseafictionaltextoftenoperatesasbothatthesametime.Whiledifferencescertainlyexistbetweenunicursalandmulticursallabyrinths,inasenseitmakeslittledifferencewhetherthepathforksornot.Thepathwindsbackandforth,obscuringtheonedirectionthatmattersintermsofidentity:inorout. Thepresenceofacenterdifferentiatesthelabyrinthfromthemaze,(SeeFigure1),orcenterlessnetworkofwindingpaths,bylendingitparticularreligioussignificanceandbyrequiringachangeinobjectiveonthepartofthetraveler.Likeagarden,themazecanofferanynumberofwaystoturnnext.Toapoint,thevisitorcandirecthisownattentionandhisownpath.Ratherthanfindingacenterandreturningfromit,theideaistowanderaroundabitandthenfindawayout,aprocessthatdoesnotrequireanychangeofobjectiveevenifitrequiresseveralchangesofdirection.Unliketheusualexperienceofvisitingagarden,however,bothlabyrinthsandmazesproduceasensationofincompleteaccesstovisionandunderstanding.Wallsdividethetravelerfromthingsshecouldotherwiseimmediatelyseeandpreventherfromchoosingadirectroute.IntermsofChristiansymbolism,buildingmazesorlabyrinthsaspartofagardenmeanstransposingavisionofthisworldanditsuncertaintyontoanEdenlikeorparadisicalideal(Wright


222).HistoricallythelabyrinthhassymbolizedtheChristianpathandthedangersthataccompanyitinafallenworld.TheactofwalkingtowardthecenterofalabyrinthrepresentsformanyChristiansajourneyofquestionings.Thecenteritselfisaplaceofmeditation,wheretravelersfeelthattheyareinsomewayspartofanotherworld,incommunionwithGod.Thetravelerthenjourneysoutofthelabyrinthasachangedpersonwithanewobjective. Priortothesixteenthcentury,mostgardenlabyrinthswereunicursal;beforeitsend,“thewallsofsomelabyrinthswereallowedtogrowtallerandthicker,floweringplantswerereplacedwithshrubbery,andtheelementofchoicewasaddedtothenow-branchingpathways”(McCullough122).Theselabyrinths,knownasirrgartensor“errorgardens”operatedmuchlikethelabyrinthinthetextofLilith,withbranchedpathwaysallowingvisitorschoiceviaforksinthepath.Thealternative“options”wereerrorsthatforcedthewanderertoretracehisstepsorlooparoundandreturntothemainpathdisoriented.Bycontrast,themazebuiltatVersaillesin1674allowedlittlepossibilityoferror.(ComparetheimagesinFigure1,shownbelow.)Insteadofacentergoal,themazecontained39sculpturalfountainsbasedonAesop’sfables,whichthewanderercouldvisitinalmostanyorder(126).

Figure 1: Comparison of Labyrinth to Garden Maze

Multicursal Labyrinth based on the one at Valencia

The Maze at Versailles (Wright 228)

76 Dryer

Despite“closelyplantedtreesandthickundergrowth”usedtoformwalls(127),thefreedomofvisitorstochoosetheorderoftheirfablesmadethemazeatVersaillesmoregardenlikeandlessrestrictivethananirrgarteninwhichthevisitorsmustavoidwrongturns. Inourowncenturywehavewitnessedabranching-outofnarrativelabyrinthsfromthetraditionalformsusedinwritingandstorytellingtonew,interactiveformslikevideo-andcomputergamesthatallowtheuservaryingdegreesofagencyintheoutcomeofthestory.Freefromthelimitationsofafictionalplotthatonceanalyzedandironedoutbecomeslinear,gamedesignallows“branchedstorylinesforinteractive,personalizedstorytelling”andcreatestheoptionof“multiplepathsthroughthegameenvironment”(Kickmeier-Rust654).Likeseventeenth-centurygardenmazes,thesegamesdonotofferthetotalfreedomthatagardenwouldprovide.Instead,thewallscreateobstacles,promoteproblem-solving,guideusersandaddinteresttothegamingexperience,keepingusersmotivatedandpreventingarapid,directpathfromstarttofinish.Likehistoricalgardenlabyrinths,thenarrativelabyrinthsofnovelsgenerallyofferonlyonetruepath.Forksoccur,twistingtheroute,andevenattimesforcingittodoubleback,butthenovelcannotbranchinbothdirectionsatonce.Whilerole-playinggamescannotprovideasmanychoicesasthegamerorreadercanimagine,theycomeclosertocreatingagardenforreaderstoexploreatwillthanabookwithasingletwistingnarrativecan.Whatdotheyloseintheprocess? InThe Idea of the Labyrinth,herstudyofthewaysinwhichphilosophersfromPlatoandSocratestoAugustineusedlabyrinthsoflogictoinstructtheirstudents,PenelopeReedDoobassertsthatwithoutlabyrinths,somelessonscannotbetaught:“Thepath,thechoicesbetweenpaths,theprescribederrors,allaredesignedtocarrythewandereroverjusttherightterritorytoachievesomethingthatcouldnothavebeenreachedbyadirectroute.Thearchitectknowsthatacertainprocessisnecessaryifthewandereristogetwherethearchitectwantshimtogoandlearnwhatshouldbelearned”(56).Thefurtherliteratureorothercreativeendeavorsdepartfromalabyrinthinestructure,thelesscontrolcanbeexercisedovertheeffectoftheworkonitsreaders,viewers,orparticipants.Inpurelygardenlikeconditions,withoutanywallsorlimitations,the“reader”wouldreceivenodirectionwhatsoeverbutcouldexploreentirelyonawhim,examiningthingsthatcaughthiseyeor,perhaps,inthemostextremecases,inventingthemtosuithisfancy.Whiletantalizing,suchtotalfreedomwouldnotbeidealforthepurposeoflearning.Certainlytherearemanydistinctpossibleactions,not

tomentionwholewaysofthinkingandseeing,thatwouldneveroccurtothereaderwerehenotchallengedbybarriersofsomekindoracentralobjective.Thenovel,withitsunderlyinglabyrinthinestructure,promptsreaderstoimaginativelyrenderamoregardenlikefictionalworldforthemselveswhileatthesametimeguidingthemeverintonewandunfamiliarterritory,openingtheireyesandcreatingdistinctlearningopportunities. InLilith,MacDonaldgiveshisnarrator,Vane,multiplechancesatgettingthepathrightbyallowinghimfivechancestoenterthelabyrinthheperceivesinMr.Raven’sworld.Eachtimeheenters,heexplorestheworld,makingspecificchoicesandeitherfollowingordepartingfromhispreviouspaths.Thefirstfourtimeshereturnstohisownworld,Vanehasreacheddead-ends.Thefifthandfinaltimehereturnstohisworld,abook(whichalsohappenstobeadoor)closesbehindhim,indicatingthathehasfoundtheexittothelabyrinthandtheendofthestory.Nevertheless,thestorydoesnotendforVane;readerssensethatithasonlybegun.Hehasalifetimetocontinuegainingknowledgeofthelabyrinthunderlyinghisdailylife,itscenter,itslimitationsandperils,andthegardenlikeheavenhe’lldiscoverwhenhereachesitsexit.Readers,likeVane,comeawayfromthebookwithasenseofboththelabyrinthinelimitationsoftheirlivesandtheendlesspossibilitiesavailableinagardenthattranscendsthelabyrinthsofindividuals,existinginandthroughtheworldasweperceiveit.

The Labyrinth and Carroll LewisCarrollsharedMacDonald’sChristianityandhisunorthodoxviewofsalvation.Inlater,lesspopularworksthanAlice in Wonderlandsuchashis1889novelSylvie and Bruno,Carrollsought,likeMacDonald,toinspireChristianbeliefthroughfantasy.Sylvie and Brunobeginswithapoem,whichbeginswithaquestionaboutphilosophyparticularlyrelevanttoChristianbelief:“IsourLife,then,butadream?”ThelastsentenceofLilithanswersthatquestion:“Novalissays,‘Ourlifeisnodream,butitshouldandwillperhapsbecomeone’”(252).ByplacingthequotationfromNovalisattheend,MacDonaldemphasizestherealityofdecisionsandtheirconsequences,whileatthesametimepointingtowardsomethingmorethathumanscannotcompletelyperceivebecauseofourfallenstate.ManytimesinLilith,Mr.RaventriestowarnoradviseVaneandgethimtoactbasedonwhathecanseeandVanecannot.Conversely,inAlice,Carroll’sCheshireCatcleverlyavoidsgivingprescriptiveadvice,whileatthesametimeteachingAlicealesson.FrustrationwithVane’sactionsorwiththeimpossibilityof

Mapping the Text of Lilith | 77

78 Dryer

directlyconveyinginformationthatVanecannotunderstandoccasionallypromptsMr.RaventoechotheCheshireCat’sdidactictechnique. Alice’sfirstencounterwiththeCheshireCatwasaddedbetweenMacDonald’sfirstreadingandthe1865publicationofAlice in Wonderland andhasaparallelpassageinLilith.“Wouldyoutellme,please,whichwayIoughttogofromhere?”AliceaskstheCheshireCat,whoanswers,“Thatdependsagooddealonwhereyouwanttogetto”(Carroll88).Mr.VaneasksasimilarquestionofMr.Raven,“WillyounotinpitytellmewhatIamtodo—whereImustgo?”andMr.Raven’sanswerechoestheCat’s:“HowshouldItellyourto-do,orthewaytoit?”(Lilith45).Inbothcases,theprotagonistlooksforguidanceandfindsthequestionturnedaroundinadisconcertingway.Withoutasenseofselfandorientationtowardagoal,itbecomesimpossibletoaskmeaningfulquestions.Inthissituation,neitherMr.RavennortheCheshireCatiswillingtolendanidentitytoourprotagonistsbycreatingagoalforthem.Instead,bothAliceandVanemustjourneytowardunderstandingidentityontheirownbymeetingothersandtryingoutnewsocialrolesbasedontheirinteractions. Asthenarrativeproceeds,bothVaneandAliceexpressapreferenceforstabilityovertransitionandcertaintyoverfurtherquestions.WhereAlicesays,“Ithinkyoumightdosomethingbetterwiththetime...thanwastingitinaskingriddlesthathavenoanswers,”Vaneexclaims,“Enigmatreadingonenigma!...Ididnotcomeheretobeaskedriddles”(Lilith45).Mr.Ravencountersbothofthem.“Youmustanswertheriddles,”hetellsVane.“Theywillgoonaskingthemselvesuntilyouunderstandyourself.”(Lilith45).Identityintransitionatoncebegsforandpushesawayfromtheideaofsettlingdown.Ontheonehand,tobefullyhumanistobeconstantlyadaptingandreacting,andtobefullyawakemeansbeingawareofthatprocessatworkandevensometimesincontrolofit.AccordingtoMr.Raven’sdaughterMara,though,eachofushaveaname—notthenamewewerebornwithbutonethatsignifieswhoweare—anamethatswirlsonourforeheaduntilitstabilizesenoughtobereadbyothersevenifweourselvescannottellwhatitsays. InMara’sview,settlingintoastableidentitydoesnotmeanlosingotheridentitiesbutacceptingthedeepestandtruestofone’sselves.Thedanceofever-changingidentities,ifitcontinuesuninterruptedbystubbornnessorimpatience,guidesustogrowintoourtrueidentityorname.InhisbookLabyrinth: Symbol of Fear, Rebirth, and Liberation,HelmutJaskolskiexplainsthatreturningfromthecenterofthelabyrinthmeans,not


returningtobut“creatingthegreatestpossibledistancefromone’sownpast.”Hewritesthatinlabyrinthinedances,“thewaybackintotheworld—almostashardasthewayin—istraveledbyachangedperson,someonewhohasfoundanewformofexistence,anewwayofbeing”(60).OnecouldarguethatinreturningtohisownworldforthelasttimeVanereturnsfromthecenterofthelabyrinthtotheoutsideandreturnschanged.Instead,Ibelievehehasfinally,inhisownworld,reachedthecenterofthelabyrinthandthathischangeisjustbeginning.WithMara’shelp,Vaneisinnowfinding“anewwayofbeing”andturningtomove,withanewobjective,intheoppositeofhisolddirection.OnLilith’ssideofthemirror,severalinteractionscauseVanetoremarkthathehaswastedhislife,spendingtoomuchofhistimealonewithhisstudiesandtoolittletimelovingandgrowingtounderstandpeople.ThesereflectionshavereorientedVaneandgivenhimanewsenseofpurpose.

The Writing Desk: Worlds in the Process of Creation In1871,CarrollpublishedasecondAlicebook,Through the Looking-Glass,whichraisedquestionsaboutfantasywritingandtheroleofliteratureinidentity.OnceagaintherearestrikingparallelsbetweenCarroll’sworkandLilith.Carrollreportsgettingtheideafortravelthroughthelookingglassin1868fromayounggirlwhoimaginedbeingontheothersideofhismirrorandlookingout,orin,atherproperself(Gardner180).CarrolldescribesAlice’sjourneythroughthemirror,saying,“Theglasswasbeginningtomeltaway,justlikeabrightsilverymist”(184).Intwopassagesdescribingthesamemodeoftravelbetweenworlds,MacDonaldemployssimilarlanguage:Indescribinghisfirstpassagethroughthemirror,Vanerelates,“Ihaveanimpressionofhavingseenthewallmeltaway”(Lilith11).Later,Vanediscoversanaccountthathisfatherwroteafterasimilarjourney,inwhichthemirrorbecame“fullofawhitemist”(42).ThatMacDonald’slanguagemirrorsCarroll’smaybetheresultofcommunicationbetweenthemonthesubjectofmirrortravel,directincorporationofthewordingonMacDonald’spart,orpurecoincidence. Bothauthorsusethemirrorasadoorbetweenworlds;MacDonaldalsousesabookassuchadoorwhen,attheendofthenovel,abookclosingbehindVaneputsanendtohistravelsbetweenworlds.InhisessayonLilith,MichaelMendelsoninterpretsthisendingasametatextualhinttoreadersconcerningtherelationbetweenfictionandreality,claimingthat“byframingthequestromanceasabibliographicadventure,MacDonaldmakesthe

80 Dryer

caseforromanceasanagentoftransformation.Whenthereaderisabletoapproachbooksasdoorsintoanotherworld,asdialogicalopportunitiestoconverseinanewkeyorrhythm,thepossiblityopensthathewillunderstandhisownworldbetter”(35).Usedasadoorway,themirrorpointstowardtheimportanceofidentityinperceivingtherelationbetweenthelabyrinthandthegarden,betweenfictionandrealitythatarebothequallytrue.Likethemirror,fictionservesasadoorwaythatcanshowreaderssomethingnewaboutourselves.However,muchmorethanthemakerofmirrors,thewritercancraftwhatkindofreflectionwewillsee. Inadditiontodoorwaysbetweenworlds,bothCarrollandMacDonalddescribebooksthatexistinbothworldsatonce.Thesebookshavetwophysicallocationsandrequireknowledgefromanotherworldinordertobeunderstood.AtfirstwhenAlicepicksup“Jabberwocky,”shebelievesthepoemanditsbooktobewritteninaforeignlanguage.Yetwhensheholdsituptothemirror,shediscoversthatthewordsarequitereadableandenjoyable,althoughstillnonsensical.Mr.Vane,onpeeringasfaraspossibleintothevolumeofpoetrythatexistsonlyhalf-wayinhisworld,describesitthisway:“Somedreams,somepoems,somemusicalphrases,somepictures,wakefeelingssuchasoneneverhadbefore,newincolourandform—spiritualsensations,asitwere,hithertounproved:here,someofthephrases,someofthesenselesshalf-lines,someevenoftheindividualwordsaffectedmeinsimilarfashion”(17).Ifbookshavetheabilitytotransportthereadertofictionalworlds,theyexistontheboundaryline.Composedofapowerfulnonsense,theycontainneitherworld.Theirstructureevokesjustenoughofeachworldtoformalinkbetweenthem. Fantasynovels,likethewordstheycontain,canbeausefulkindofnonsense.ColinManloveexplainsthat“[Vane’s]descriptionwillbelikethehalf-bookthatinthe[theRaven’sworld]isfoundtobewhole:itwillhelptotakeusfromthisworldtoalargerone,andfromatexthalf-understoodtoonethatwillrevealthetruth”(50).Bychangingandbroadeningourrangeofperception,anovelcanactively“create”theworldweexperienceindailylifejustasitcan“create”afantasyworld.Fictioncannotcreateinthesenseofbringingsomethingintobeingthatdidnotexistbefore;whatitcandoisinfluencetheperspectiveofreaders,causingthemtorendertheirperceptionofrealitydifferently.ThisistheprocesswewitnessattheendofLilithwhenthebookclosesandVaneisreturnedforciblytohisworld.Inthefinalchapterwhenhereportsthat“Maraismuchwithme.Shehastaughtmemanythings,andisteachingmemore,”weseethathisworldviewhaschangedasthe


resultofhisfantasticalexperience.HenowassociatesthesufferinginhislifewiththecharacterMara,whoacknowledgesthatsufferingishardyetknowshowtomakesufferingthatisnecessaryalsouseful.Insteadofmourningthelossofthefantasticalworldorseekingtore-openthebookbyjourneyingbackthroughthemirror,Vaneintegratesperspectivelearnedfromhisfantasticaljourneysintohiseverydaylife.

Nots: Defining in the Negative Thenovelwriterbeginswithagardenlike,ratherdirectionlessworldofendlessimaginativepossibilitiesandendswithaskeletallabyrinthinestructurehehopeswilldirectreaderstorenderafantasticalworldinspecificwaysastheyread.Fictionalworldsfeelgarden-likeinthesensethattheircharactersseemtohaveseveralpossiblecoursesofactionandreadersseemtohavecontrolovertheirownperceptionandinterpretation.However,thesegardenlikefeaturesoffictionasawholeareillusory.Apublishednovelisbynaturelabyrinthine:itscharactersarepredestined,theirchoicesalreadywritten.Thereader’ssensescanonlyoperatewithintheprovidedframebasedondetailsthathavealreadybeenchosen.Whileherinterpretationisherown,thedetailssheperceivesandreactstohavebeenselectedforher.Whileformsofstructurednarrativelikethenoveldonotallowthecompletefreedomofagarden,theyofferguidedfreedom.Theunderlyinglabyrinthcansuggestagardenlikeworldmorecomplexandfulfillingthananythingcontainedinthetextitself.Atthesametime,thelabyrinthguidesustounderstandthatgardeninlightofspecificmessages—itprovidesawayofteachingnotbydirectinstructionbutbydesignedexperience. Inhisstudyoflabyrinthsasverbalart,WarnerSennexplainsthat“metaphor,bycontentingitselfwithnamingthelabyrinthasvehicle,achievesnopresenceoftheobjectinthetextitself”(225).Indeed,theoneoccurrenceoftheword“labyrinth”inLilithconveysmuchlessaboutthenarrativelabyrinthMacDonaldhascreatedthananother,seeminglyunrelated,word;not.ThewordstandsoutinLilith’sepigraph,apassagefromThoreau,whereitappearsanastonishingtentimesinundertwopages.InthetextofLilith,notandothernegationsplayimportantrolesinevokingafantasticalworld. Recentdevelopmentsinthefieldoftextualanalysisprovideanexcitingopportunityforanalyzingandlearningfromanauthor’swordusage,includinguseofnegations.Asimpleconcordanceprogramcanaccuratelyaccomplishinsecondswhatotherwisewouldtakehourstodo:identifyingandcompilingallinstancesofthewordnotalongwiththeessentialdetails

82 Dryer

oftheircontextforeasyreferenceandanalysis.RunningthefreewareconcordanceprogramAntConcontheentireGutenbergtextofLilithrevealsastartling1,038instancesofthewordnot.However,appearingathousandtimesina95,156-wordtextdoesnotmakethewordnotinherentlysignificant;thepotentialforbroaderimplicationscomesfromanalysisincomparisontootherworks.Inhis2007LinguisticInquiryandWordCountprogram(LIWC),JamesPennebakerhascreatedatoolthatmovesbeyondthecapabilitiesofaconcordance.Pennebaker’sprogramincludesspecificallydesignedcategoriessothatitidentifies no,not,cannot,never,andothernegationsaspartofthesamecategoryofwords.BecauseLIWCcategorizesallwordsusedinthetext,itallowsdirectcomparisonbetweenthepercentageofnegationsandthepercentageofallothercategoriesofwordsinLilith.Moreimportantly,itallowsdirectquantitativecomparisonofLilithtoothernovels,andPennebakerhascompiledresultsfromamassivedatabaseofreferencetexts,makingthiscomparisonpossible. RunningtheGutenbergtextofLiliththroughLIWCrevealsatrendofunusuallyfrequentnegationuse.Negationsmakeup4.29%ofallwordsusedintheepigraphfromThoreau’sessay“Walking.”Meanwhile,negationsmakeup2.19%ofwordsusedinLilith,ascomparedto1.69%innovelsonaverage(Pennebaker11).Perhapsnotcoincidentally,LewisCarroll’sAlice in Wonderlandalsocontainsmorethantheaveragenumberofnots,with2.15%ofallwordsbeingnegations.Bycontrast,Thoreau’sessayasawholecontainsonly1.88%negations.AnalysisofthefrequencyandcontextofMacDonald’susageofthewordnotyieldsaclearerviewofthestructurallabyrinthofLiliththanweobtainsimplybyreading. Lilith’snarratorfrequentlyusesnottosignifyinabilityortodefinethingsinthenegativethatheisunabletootherwiseunderstandorexplain.However,notalsooftensignalsaroadnottaken.Itcancauseaforkinthepath,forcingVanetotakeonerouteandnottheother,oritcansignalhisrefusaltomoveforward,favoringstasis.MappingforksinVane’spathcreatedbythewordnot,weseethreedistinctimpactshischoicesatvarioustimescreate:theycangiveusabriefglimpseofanalternativepath,revealthatthepathatthatpointwasstraightandthatheactuallyhadnochoicetomake,andreturnustoapreviousquestion,showingthatVane’spathhasloopedordoubledbackonitself.(Examplesshowbelow.ForafullmapofLilith’s Forksmarkedbynegation,seeFigure2intheAppendixonpage106).


Asanexampleofnotcausingreaderstoglimpseanalternativepath,whenMr.Vanedeclinesto“thinkfurther”(Lilith35),thementionofnotconsideringfurtherpromptsreaderstodoexactlythat.WhiletheonlyrealpathforVaneistostophisconsiderationwith“tenthousandthings”andmoveon,thisnotcreatesaforkforreaders,invitingustoopenourmindsandfullyimaginewhattheexistenceofmanyrealandinterrelatedworldsexistinginthesamespacemightmean. Inmanyinstances,thewordnot createssuchaforkbyleavingreaderswithatantalizingclueofwhatmightalsobeandallowingusabriefglimpseofanalternativepath.Inothercases,however,notproducesacuriouseffectbyshowingreadersaforkVanebelieveshehastakenthatdoesnotactuallyexistatall.Forexample,whenVanesayshewillnotleavethehouse(Lilith19),hedoesnotreallyhavethatchoice.Ontheonehand,hemustmoveinonedirectionoranother—must,orthestorywouldend.Bymovingheaccidentallywandersintothealternateworld.Stayinghome,inthesenseofstasis,wasnotaforkbutatemporarypausealongasinglepath.Ontheotherhand,evenwhentravelingthroughMr.Raven’sworld,Vaneneverdoesleavehome.HebelievesthathehasleftwhenhewalksintohisgardenandfindshimselfbackinthepineforestneartheSexton’scottage,butinfacttheflowershefindsbloominggrowexactlywherehispianositsinnormallife(Lilith23).Stayinghomeinthatsensewasneveraquestion.Vanecanexperience“tenthousand”worldsinthesamespace,withouteverphysicallyleavinghisproperty,althoughhelackstheabilitytoconsistentlycontrolhismovementevenbetweentwo.

84 Dryer

SomeofthechoicesMr.Vanefaceshehasfacedbefore.Atsuchpointswhenthenarrativeforksalign,hispathhasdoubledbackandbroughthimtoapsychologicalpositionsimilartoonehehasalreadyfaced:ThefirsttimehehasanoptionofforgettingorrememberingwithregardtoMr.Ravenoccursonpage18.Rememberinggetshimintotrouble,atleastfromhisperspectiveatthetime,bydisruptinghisnormallife.Thesecondtime,rememberingwouldpresumablykeephimoutoftroublebutheforgets.Whileitwouldseemstrangetocallforgetingorrememberingaconsciouschoice,thewordnotcreatesaforkineachcase,revealingamissedopportunity.Thereaderimaginesthealternative—first,thatVanecouldhavestayedathomepeacefullywithouteverrememberingMr.Raven’sexistenceorhisworld;andnext,thatVanecouldhaveavoidedmanytrialsbyfollowingMr.Raven’sadvice—andgainssomethingbythatbriefjourneydownanotherpaththantheonethenarrativefollows.VanecouldhaveavoidedhisexperiencesinMr.Raven’sworld,butwejudgethatheisbetterforhavingexperiencedthem.Furthermore,thenovelwouldhavebeenpointlesswithouttheplotthatresultsfromremembering.Vanecouldhaverememberedthesecondtimeandbeenbetterforit,oratleasthadaneasierjourney,buthismistakeinforgettingmakesforalongernovelandprobablyabetterone.


Likethewordnot,othernegationslike“nothing”and“never”playessentialrolesindefiningpaths,circumstances,andperceptionsinthenegative.Anabove-averagenumberofnegationsdifferentiatesLilithandAlice in Wonderlandfromnovelsingeneral,suggestingthat“nots”andothernegationsmaybeparticularlyusefulfordefiningfantasyworlds.Comparedtotheaveragenovel,bothalsouseagreaterpercentageofwordsthatconcernmotion,space,andtime(Pennebaker11).Aswithnegations,thedifferenceinthesecategoriesisslightlygreaterforLiliththanforAlice.AtthesametimeastheuseofnegationscreatesforksinLilith’snarrativelabyrinth,thespatialorientationofMr.Raven’sworldtoVane’spresentsastructuralphenomenonthatallowscharacterstotakeshortcutsthroughtheirownworldsandeventranscendthewallsoftheirpersonallabyrinthstogainaviewfromoutside.

86 Dryer

Figure 3: The Otherworld Journey of Mr. Vane


Writing Links between Gardenlike and Labyrinthine Worlds AlthoughVanestumblesbackintohisownworldthroughvariouslittle-understoodgates,heentersMr.Raven’sworldatthesamespotfouroutoffivetimes.Thefifthentrance,atthesexton’scottage,occurswhileVaneisdreaming.Havingsingleentry-pointinthepineforestandmultiplepathswithinmakesMr.Raven’sworldautomaticallyrathermazelikefromVane’sperspective.EvenMr.RavenacknowledgeshisdependenceonVane’shouseasaconvenientpassageway.WhereasVane’sworldcanbeenteredatmultiplelocations—hisgarret,hiscloset,hisfountain,andhislibrary,tonameafew—bothhisgardenandhisgarretexitreliablyintothepineforest,makingtravelinMr.Raven’sworldwithVane’shouseasashortcutfasterandlessfraughtwithperilthantravelthroughMr.Raven’sworldalone. LikeMr.Raven,LilithalsousesVane’sworldasashortcut,atrickthatbyitsnecessityindicatestheobstructionofherworldbylabyrithinewalls.ThewallsLilithexperiencesonherownsideofthemirrorarenotthesamewallsthatVaneexperiencesthere.Infactthelabyrinththatindividualcharactersexperiencecomesintoexistenceduetotheirownlimitedperceptionandthesenseofidentityeachstrivestoholdonto.Mr.Ravenperceivestherealityofagarden’sopenspacewhereMr.Vanefindswalls.LilithfindsadangerousandnearlyimpassablebarrierbetweenherandherdaughterLona.Toreachherdaughterandkillher,LilithmusttravelthroughVane’sworld.Vaneontheotherhand,canmoveeasilybetweenLilithandLona,evenwithintheworldontheirsideofthemirror.Still,Vane’sabilitiesofperception,actionandmovementaremuchmorelimitedthanthoseofMr.Raven. AmongthemanyphenomenaVanecannotproperlyconceivearetheflowersaddingsweetnesstopianomusicandevenatreegrowingrightwhereitsupperbranchesformthefountainonhislawn.Nowonder,then,thathefailstoseetheinfinitepossibilitiesofexperiencebeforehimandinsistsonchoosingunnecessarilycomplicated“right”(usually“wrong”)pathsthatadduptoaplot.WhentheRavenwoulddirectVane—asthecrowflies—bystraightpaths,Vanefindshimselfirresistablydrawntootherroutes,inpartthroughselfishnessbutlargelybecauseofthelimitedperceptionwhichdefinesrealityforhim.Evenwhenactingunselfishlyoutofcompassion,pity,orthedesiretorightthewrongshehasdone,Vanecannotaccessastraightpathtoheaven.Whenheattempts,heisgentlypushedbackintohisworld,wherehemustwalkinrightbutneverthelesslabyrinthinepathsofsorrowandhopeinordertoreachhisdestination.

88 Dryer

DespiteVane’sinabilitytofollowtheRavenstraightintoresurrectedlife,hefollowssomeoftheRaven’sadvice,learnshisriddlesbyheart,andseeksouthisdaughterMaraintimesofgreatestneed.InallofthesewaysheutilizestheRavenasaguideandcompasstoorienthimselfwithinthelabyrinthheexperiencesevenwithoutdirectlyfollowingorunderstandinghim.CanitbeacoincidencethatthecenterofallVane’spaths,whichheapproachesfromthreedistinctdirectionsbutonlyoncegainsentryto,isMara’scottage?(SeeFigure3,below)Attheendofthenovel,Vane’sacknowledgmentofMara’scontinuingpresencewithhimindicatethathehasasenseofthelabyrinth’scenterandabeliefinthegardeninandthroughthatlabyrinth,agardenwhichhecanknowonlybyfaith.

Figure 3, insert

Layers of Lilith LilithreflectsMacDonald’sconvictionsabouthumaninabilitytopermanentlyavoidredemptionandtheinabilityofanyone—evenGod—toleadtheindividualonastraightpathtowardthatend.Theindividualwilltakeallthetwistsandturnsofhispersonallabyrinth,ifMr.Vaneisanyexample.However,asMarkHawthornewritesinhisessayonlabyrinthsinPynchon,“Oneproblemwiththeverbalmulticursallabyrinthisthat,whiletheoutcome


dependsonthemoralorpsychologicalnatureofthewanderer,thereaderfollowsthewanderer’spathwayasalinearprogression;thereader,unlikethewanderer,cannotdetermineprogressormakechoicestoaltertheoutcome”(12).Ifwrittennarrativesareinherentlyinflexible,whatmakesaliterarylabyrinthrelevantforreadersandrichtoexperience? MacDonaldbelievedthatfantasyworldsevokeamorecompleteandpersonalrenderingthanthatgiveninthetextitselfbecauseofspirituallayersofmeaningthattheauthorpullsinunconsciouslythroughimagery.In“TheFantasticImagination”hewrote:“OnedifferencebetweenGod’sworkandman’sisthat,whileGod’sworkcannotmeanmorethanhemeant,man’smustmeanmorethanhemeant.ForineverythingthatGodhasmade,thereislayeruponlayerofascendingsignificance...itisGod’sthings,hisembodiedthoughts,whichalonemanhastouse”(9).FromMacDonald’sperspective,writerscanscarcelyunderstandthepowerofwordsandimagestheyweaveintostory,muchlessthecombinedeffectofsymbolsinacompletedpiece.Whilethewriterworkswithonelevelofmeaning,orperhapsseveral,thesymbolssheworkswitharemuchmorecomplexthanthewaysinwhichsheusesthem.Whenwordscauseustoimagine,theyevokeobjects,memories,people,orimagesthatexisted,tiedtothetextbutoutsideit,beforeweopenedthebook. MacDonaldevokesagarden—analternativeworldwithendlesspossibilities—bycreatinganarrativelabyrinth.Ifnovelstendnaturallytowardthelabyrinthine,Lilithismadesignificantlysobyitscyclical,non-linearformatanditsChristianideologythatreliesonalabyrinth-drivenworldview:Humansinafallenstatefindobstaclesintheirway,andiftheycannotwalkbyfaiththeywillhavetogothelongwayarounduntiltheylearnhow.SeveralcharactersinMr.Raven’sworld,includinghisdaughtersMaraandLona,perceiverealityasagardenandoperateinitinwaysthatthenarrator,trappedinalabyrinththatislayeredoverandthroughthatreality,cannotcomprehend.Ourvisionasreadersofboththeirinhibitedmovementandhisfrustrating,frustratedattemptsatmovingaboutandactingusefullytohimselforanyoneelsepointustowardagardenoutsidethetext.MacDonaldsuggestswemayperceiveanothersuchworldifweallowourownworldtobecomeattimesliminalandshimmering,asVanedoesattheend.Reality,then,accordingtoLilith,isagardeninandthroughthealsoveryreallabyrinththatweandVaneinhabit. To understandhowlabyrinthsandgardenscanbelayeredinthesamespaceorthesametext,wemustviewlabyrinthandgardennotasexclusive,

90 Dryer

oppositeterms,butastwosimulateouslypresent,interwovenrealities.InheressayonmythologythatinfluencedthewritingofLilith,VerlynFliegermentionsMacDonald’sCelticheritageandintroducesustoapoemcalledVoyage of Bran,inwhichcharactersconverseacrossworlds.Shewrites,“Theimagesinthepoemarenotparallelbutincompatiblerealitieswithadoorbetweenthem,butoverlapping,co-existing,anduncompetingperceptionsoccupyingthesamespaceandthesametime.Soitiswiththeseaandthewood,andsoitiswiththetreeandVane’schimney”(43).Justbecausetheworldappearstobeonethingandisanotherdoesnotmeanitisnotthethingitappearstobealso.Withoutspecificboundaries,theworldsintersect,becominglayeredinandthroughoneanother.InLilith,parallelworldscanbeperceivedatonce,andareperceivedatthesametimebyMr.Raven,butournarratorlacksthecapacity.Infact,thetwoworldsthatVanetravelsthrougharenotsolid,uncontestable,unchangingrealities,buthisperceptions. TheworldVaneexperiencesafterpassingthroughthemirrorisnotfundamentallythesameastheworldothersonthatsideofthemirrorperceive.WhereastheLittleOnesfindnothingterrifyingordangerousinadrylakebedtheymustcrosscalledtheBadBurrow,Vaneseesitoverrunwithhorriblemonsters.Mr.Ravenatonceseesthatthereareflesh-and-bloodmonsters,thatthemonstersarealsohumansins,andthattheLittleOnesarenotmerelyblindedbyinnoncenceasitwouldappear;intheirworld,nothingphysically,spiritually,orevenmetaphoricallydangerousexistsintheBadBurrowatallbecausenoactionintheirworldhascreatedanythingsobad.NorcanthemonstersperceivetheLittleOnesorattackthem,evenwhentheyoccupytheexactsamespace.LiketheRavenremarkingonthelayeringofobjectsinsomanyofVane’sencounters,VanenowhastheabilityseeboththeLittleOnesandthemonstersatonceandwitnessthattwocompletelyvalidperceptionscanoperateinthesameplaceatthesametime.Threeinfact,countinghisownviewofbothwhenneithercanseetheother.Mr.Raven’sadditionalviewofeachlivingmonsterasasinaddsafourthperception—seeingthesinswithoutseeingthemonsters,theLittleOnes,orMr.Vane—andafifth,hisown,seeingallofitinthesamespaceatonce,overlappingandevenmutuallyinfluencingthroughdialogueandcauseandeffect,allwithoutnegatinganyoftheotherperceptions. If,fromaChristianideologicalperpectivelikeMacDonald’s,eatingfromtheTreeofKnowledgecausedthefall,thenitwasafallintoalabyrinthofknowledge.Theknowledgeistrue,thelabyrinthreal,butatthesametimeourwallsofknowledgehinderusfromperceivingthegardenthatisalsotrueandexistent,inandthroughourreality.Welacktheperspectivetoseethroughourwallsandthedimensionstotranscendthem.Whatbettersymbolicplaceforalabyrinthofknowledgethanalibrary,wherethenovel


Lilithbeginsandends?BytheendofthenovelVanecancatchaglimpseofashimmeringgardenworldthroughthewallsofhislibrary.ThisiswhatMacDonaldhopeshisreaderswillalsodo.Tothatend,heshowsusspecificforksinVane’slabyrinthviahischoices.Vanetakespathshemisjudgestoberight;MacDonaldgivesusavagueforeknowledgeoftheirconsequencesthroughMr.RavenandthroughVanehimself(asnarratorandwriter).LikeMr.Raven,manyreaderswouldchooseashortcutforVane,astraightpathtotheheavenofwhichhehehasasmall,faultyglimpse.However,Vanemustfirstliveinthelabyrinthofhisownworld,believingthatitisalsosimultaneouslyagardenbutunabletoperceiveit. MovingoutalayerfromVane’slabyrinthintothereader’sexperiencereadingLilith,thegardenlikefully-realizedfictionalworldswenaturallyinhabitwhilereadingareactuallyonlyalabyrinthonpaper.Movingoutanotherlayerstill,open-endedliteraturethatleavesmysteriesunsolvedandreadersknowingmorethanthedimprotagonistcreatesalabyrinthoffthepagethatpointstoagardenyetgreaterthanitself(SeeFigure4.)Whilereading,wearetrappedandawareofbeingtrappedinthelabyrinthofLilith,followingMr.Vane’serrors;afterthebookcloses,thelabyrinthoutsidethetext,havingkeptusmentallyengagedandalteredourperceptions,continuestoinviteustowardfuthermentalacrobaticsinunderstandingtherelationbetweenlabyrinthandgardenworlds.

Figure 4: Layers of Lilith

92 Dryer

Conclusion ThegardenservesasafittingcounterparttothelabyrinthintermsoftheideologybehindLilith.Theideaoffelix culpaascribesalabyrinthinestructuretotheGardenofEdeninaspecificway:whereasAdamandEvehadtheillusionoftwopathstochoosefrom,takingtheforbiddenfruitandnottakingit,onlyoneofthosepathscouldactualybetakenandleadtootherchoices.Theother“path”wastoremainintheGarden,withnodistinctorperscribedpathsatallandtheabilitytocrossthroughandoverwallsofknowledgethattheycouldnotsee,buttodosowithoutknowingitbecausefromtheirperceptiontherewasnothingtoknow.TheGardenwouldhavebeenaworldofitsown,verymuchapartfromthelimitationsofafallenworld,andfreefromanyconcernsregardingmovement,perspective,orstasis.Intheperspectiveandtermsofafallen,labyrinthineworld,however,nottakingthefruitmeantstasisandlackofdevelopment,includingalackofknowledgeofandappreciationforthehumansituationandthusalackofabilitytotrulypray.Ifwevieweatingthefruitastheonlypaththatledforwardtothetwistsandturnsoffullspiritualandhumanjourney,thennomatterhowdevotedtoGodthefirstmanandwomanmayhavebeen,theycouldnothavestayedatoneplaceinthelabyrinthforever.Itwasonlyamatteroftimebeforetheytookastepforward,astepwhichinthatmomentbecameastepinwardoroutwardalongthepathofthelabyrinthineperceptioninwhichtheyfoundthemselveslost. Perhapstheideaoffelix culpaalsoappliestofiction;thepresenceofalabyrinthinliteraturepromptsmovementtowardagoalandencourageslearninganddevelopmentinwaysthatagardenbyitselfcannot.Whatcannotbelearnedbyadirectroute,whetherbecauseofitsabstractionandinaccessibilityorbecauseofitsoverwhelmingpower,canneverthelessbelearnedbyacircuitousroute.Doobwritesthat“theprocessoflearningislabyrinthinewhetherornotpriorknowledgeisinvolved:onemovesincircles,forwardandback,seemingtorecedebutinfacteverapproachingbysuccessiveapproximationtheknowledgethatisthegoal,”andthat“thisknowledgecouldnotbereachedsoeffectivelybyadirectroute,ashortcut,fortheprocessitselfdetermineswhethertheproductwillbeunderstood”(89).ThelabyrinthinedialecticalmethodusedbyPlato,Socrates,andAugustinefindsanewforminMacDonald’sfantasy.Theunderlyingstructurethattheprotagonist’schoicesinanovelcreatebothlimitsourfreedomofperceptionandmovementasreadersandcausesourimaginationstorenderanentirefictionalworld.Bydrawingattentiontothisprocess,MacDonaldtakes


usonalabyrinthinejourneyintonewwaysofseeing.

Endnote1.Somesourcesdescribeherasawoman,createdasAdamwas,whileothersdescribeLilithasanangelordemon.MacDonaldfollowstheangelictraditioninLilith,asweseeonpage148whenMr.RavenstaresasLilithandsays,“ThenGodgavemeanotherwife—notanangelbutawoman—whoistothisaslightistodarkness.”

WorksCitedBrock,Rita,andRebeccaParker.Saving Paradise: How Christianity Traded Love of This World for Crucifixion and Empire.Boston:Beacon,1992.Print.Carroll,Lewis.“AnEasterGreetingtoEveryChildwhoLovesAlice.”Gutenberg. Web.—.The Annotated Alice: Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass.Ed.MartinGardner.NewYork:ClarksonN.Potter, 1960.Print.—.Sylvie and Bruno.London:MacMillan,1889.Print.Doob,PenelopeReed.The Idea of the Labyrinth: from Classical Antiquity through the Middle Ages.CornellUP,1990.Print.Fletcher,Angus.“TheImageofLostDirection.”Centre and Labyrinth: Essays in Honour of Northrop Frye.Ed.EleanorCook,etal.UofTorontoP,1983. 329-46.Print.Flieger,Verlyn.“Myth,Mysticism,andMagic:ReadingattheCloseofLilith.” Harriman39-45.Harriman,LucasH.Lilith in a New Light: Essays on the George MacDonald Fantasy Novel.Jefferson,NC:McFarland,2008.Print.Harrison,RobertPogue.“Gardens:AnEssayontheHumanCondition.”Uof ChicagoP,2008.Web.Hawthorne,MarkD.“Pynchon’sEarlyLabyrinths.”College Literature25:2(1998): 78-93.Web.Holstein,JamesAandJaberF.Gubrium,eds.Inner Lives and Social Worlds: Readings in Social Psychology.NewYork:OxfordUP,2003.Print.Hurd,Barbara.Stirring the Mud: On Swamps, Bogs, and Human Imagination. Boston:Beacon,2001.Print.Jaskolski,Helmut.The Labyrinth: Symbol of Fear, Rebirth, and Liberation.Trans. MichaelH.Kohn.Boston:Shambhala,1997.Print.Kickmeier-Rust,etal.“ImmersiveDigitalGames:TheInterfacesforNext- GenerationE-Learning.”Ed.C.Stephanidis.Universal Access in Human Computer Interaction Applications and Services.Berlin:Springer.4556 (2007):647-656.Web.MacDonald,George.Lilith: A Romance.GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2000.Print.

94 Dryer

—.“TheFantasticImagination.”The Complete Fairy Tales.NewYork:Penguin, 1999.Print.Manlove,Colin.“TheLogicofFantasyandtheCrisisofClosureinLilith.”Harriman 46-58.Mendelson,Michael.“Lilith,Textuality,andtheRhetoricofRomance.”Harriman 21-38.McCullough,DavidWillis.The Unending Mystery.NewYork:Pantheon,2004. Print.Pennebaker,James.W.,et.al.“TheDevelopmentandPsychometricPropertiesof LIWC2007.”Austin:UofTexas,2007.Web.—.Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC(2007).Austin,TX:LIWC.Web.Schlobin,RogerC.“CollinsAgonistes;Or,WhyDidIBotherTo?”Harriman83-84.Senn,Werner.“TheLabyrinthImageinVerbalArt:Sign,Symbol,Icon?”Word and Image.2:3(1986):219-230.Print.Wright,Craig.The Maze and the Warrior: Symbols in Architecture, Theology, and Music.HarvardUP,2001.Print.

106 | Appendix

Appendix: Forks Marked By Negation

Appendix | 107

Mapping the Text of Lilith: MacDonald’s Labyrinths and ... · PDF fileMapping the Text of Lilith: MacDonald’s Labyrinths and Gardens Kaitlyn Dryer A bstract Readers of fiction

Documents