From: Eleanor Berry November 1999

Re: Stop the car Mr Becket previously published as The Rendon Boy to the Grave is Gone

I have gone through your report re: the first edition of The Rendon Boy to the Grave is Gone and have done all I can to adhere to your advice. I will go through the report and state what I have done, point by point.

1. We have here a very strong story which is darkly humorous and tragic in turn. I have therefore had to fit it into the category of Black Comedy.
2. References to Religious Matters. I have avoided presenting these in the framework of a formal theme but have used them to draw out many of the protagonists, in particular Ian Rosen, by making him express flamboyant opinions on this subject. In a sense, I have used him as a mouthpiece but without the Reader’s knowledge. I have also done this to give his complex personality an additional hallmark. Perhaps, this could be compare with the way in which John Wayne wears a pink, woman’s handkerchief round his neck in all his films, inexplicable though this may be. Another analogy is the Marx Brother who plays the harp interminably, confusingly at variance with the intricate plots of Marx Brother’s films.

Further, I have made these points to illustrate the effect that Rosen’s childhood had on him. I will elaborate on this matter when I come to a separate heading

3. Haste. You mention the problem of haste in the prose. I have done all I can to slow this down. I have found it difficult to maintain a speed limit. I am afraid my style is naturally hasty and I cannot rectify it, entirely.
4. Chapters. I have bought in chapters as you advised. I have varied their lengths. I have seen to it that in 90% of cases, they end on a slope and that they transmit varied levels of tension. In some instances, I have left the Reader in suspense, others in a state of shock. A few chapters leave the reader craving for a rest.
5. Kate Rendon. On your advice, I have activated this character as early as I could, instead of leaving her dormant until two thirds of the way through the book. I obviously could not bring an active Kate Rendon in at the beginning, as I have had to create suspense by showing Juliet, and other parties, warning the Boy about her, at length. As early as I could, I referred to various menacing gestures and acts committed by her, in order to terrify the Boy and intrigue the Reader.
6. The Fates of the Protagonists. You state that the two main protagonists, Ian Rosen and the Boy should ideally not be defeated at the end, on the grounds that defeat could disquiet the Reader if good or "nice" characters are left by the wayside. In Rosen’s case, he dies, tragically, of natural causes. In the Boy’s case, in visiting Rosen’s grave, he is phsychologi8cally trampled on by Kate Rendon’s sadism, and dies of a broken heart.

However, I have gone out of my way to make it very clear to the Reader, that the downfalls of Rosen and the Boy, are only part of a "blip". That is why I added quite a long epilogue, terminating the book. Kate Rendon, the antagonist, is punished by a sort of "Karma" touch. The paralysis of her limbs occurs, more than coincidentally, with the Boy’s death. I have also introduced light-hearted humour into the Epilogue, as well as the book itself. For example, you will note the jokes about the 54 surgeons from San Francisco, the over-talkative Washington policeman, etc.,

I am aware that the use of the Supernatural is sometimes criticised, although you have not mentioned it. I use it in books, from time to time, to create tension and intrigue. Indeed, far greater writers than I have used it liberally. Gogol’s The Overcoat, demonstrating the victory of justice over cruelty, is an example of this literary technique. It does not appear to matter whether the Reader is superstitious or not.

I think I have now made it clear that it is the antagonist, Kate Rendon, who suffers at the end. When the Reader closes the book, he/she will be more that aware that justice has been done, regardless of the Boy’s death. In short, the slate of evil, as it were, has been wiped clean. I feel that, on closing the book, the Reader will feel in a calm, peaceful, satiated frame of mind.

 

7. Ian Rosen. Where this character is concerned, I have no longer invited the Reader to see him as the book’s main protagonist, but as a multi-facetted, sexually attractive, on the whole benevolent, if sometimes tactless person, whose role, though dominant, is not all encompassing. I have deliberately "flawed" him, in order to humanise him and make him likeable and real, rather than puppet like, and two dimensional. I have also tried to make him ennoble the Reader.

I have also removed the incident regarding the toothpaste, because although he is "flawed", I agree that if his breath is said to be unfresh, the Reader would automatically turn against him.

However, I have deliberately left in the references to his bathing habits. It is only on certain occasions that there are lapses in these, and on most occasions, he is fastidious about his ablutions. The reason I have gone out of my way to alert the Reader to this matter , is that many, even highly respectable woman, are attracted to unkempt men with undone ties and collars and a general "touch of the rough", provided that these men have fine, sensitive minds and senses of humour.

I have also made him into a chain-smoker, not only to make him attractive to a few Readers, but also to show that a benevolent man (if believable) has vices and that even a man with vices, is capable of benevolence.

It is for the same reason that I have created him as a man-hating, ladies man, and have made quite a point of showing him to be aggressively intolerant of any parties (such as Thomas Rosen, Pendeary, Becket, Nick the Doctor, et alia) who approach him with intent to steer him towards godliness. For a reason, of which I am unsure, certain Eighteenth Century philosophers have opined that there is some unexplained and inexplicable connection between anti-religion and eroticism. I have informed the Reader of Rosen’s awesome childhood which accounts to a greater extent, for this aspect of his behaviour.

I have gone out of my way to portray him as a self-sacrificing, entirely selfless, secular saint, whether "flawed" or otherwise. I may not have made this clear in the first edition. However, in the second edition, I have pointed out that Miranda is just as much of a sex maniac as Rosen, and that, give and take a few exceptions , she craves for it as much as he does. Hence, I do not think that the fault of "selfish lust" can be logically applied to any part of his carnal make-up.

8. Incidents of Vomiting. I have greatly reduced these, particularly on occasions when they are unnecessary. For instances, I have adjusted the episode in the synagogue. I have also prevented Rosen from being sick in the Royal Free Hospital, simply because the boy refers in passing, to religious matters. I made a serious error and have amended it, accordingly.

However, I have not re-adjusted the incident when Rosen has a winter virus. And, obviously, I have not reduced the number of occasions when the Boy is sick, both inside and outside the Rolls, because, on the whole, the Reader would find these comical.

9. Body of Juliet being taken to Mortuary. Made a mistake. Have amended, accordingly.
10. Character of Miranda. Although the recent data covers a number of pages following each other, I have significantly elaborated on Miranda. I have endeared the Reader to her, so much that she is now one of the main protagonists. It is likely that many male Readers will enjoy her self-effacing modesty, stoicism and other qualities, in the way that female Readers will find Rosen forceful, liberated and engaging.
11. Death of Simon White, the Dentist. I have adhered to your advice here. Since his expulsion from the house and the removal of his name from the Dental Register, I have described his downfall, both psychological and financial, his failed relationship with a man in the tenement block he is reduced to living in, and ultimately acquainted the Reader with his extraordinary and dramatic death. I have given extensive coverage to the events occurring a few weeks before his death, having recognised that my description of same, in the first edition, was too peremptory.

Further, in order to colour the narrative, I have magnified his unpleasantness, so that he contrasts more realistically with the protagonists, thus interspersing light more effectively with shade.

12. Vision of Characters. I have done all I can to "see these from within" to "show and not to feel", and to "enter their heads". In many instances, I have made them speak about each other. To achieve this, I have used a lot of dialogue. I have avoided lengthy passages in indirect speech, describing the actions and thoughts of characters and have let them speak for themselves, throughout.
13. Becket the Chaffear. I do not agree that he is a "minor" character, although he is sometimes "off stage". He is just as significant as some of the eccentric characters who form cogs in the wheel of Camus’ book, The Plaque. Though they do not cover a lot of print, they hold the book together. I refer to such people as Taront and Cottard.

1. He is among the protagonists. His function, particularly in Marseilles, is to form a contrast to Rosen and in doing so, he brings him further to the fore, just as the priest, Peneloux in The Plague accentuates the book’s central and leading character, Doctor Reiux. Although Becket is profoundly devout, while Rosen is the opposi8te and they quarrel, they remain close friends. Of note is the fact that he4 is the only adult male that Rosen is prepared to get on with.
2. Becket is quaint, endearingly odd and in short, an amiable curio, steeped most of the time in what others around him see as causeless, inexplicable melancholia. There is no other character in the book remotely like him, so, in essence, he is a "bird of rare plumage". This point is shown by his reading The Brothers Karamazov in the driver’s seat of the parked Rolls, while his employers copulate violently in the back. He also sits reading, as I remember it, a book about barges combing the Volgar in Nineteenth Century Russia, while Rosen, only a few feet away, rapes Kate Rendon in Marseilles and virtually throws her body against a wall, which is strewn, as a mildly comical touch, with outdated, pro-Algerian graffiti. Added to Becket’s eccentricity, he sometimes inadvertently floods houses in which he stays as a guest and on one occasion, starts a fire. It is noteworthy that his hosts always invite him back, seemingly through genuine affection, rather than to exploit insurance companies.

1. Miranda’s Behaviour After Juliet’s Death. This has been covered under another heading. She does come over as being clinical and wooden in the first edition, when the implications of Juliet’s death are discussed. This has been amended.
2. The beginning, the Middle and the End. You mention that these are necessary to form the shape and orderly structure of the book.

1. I regard the drama of Juliet’s death as its beginning.
2. The central part is a mixture but follows a consecutive pattern. It constitutes the Boy’s upheaval and move to 41 Lyndhurst Road, the welcoming change in foster-fathers and his subsequent temporary happiness, thwarted abruptly by his abduction.

A graph could be drawn to account for his journeys to Paradise, hell and back. Still central is his re-union with Rosen and return to London to another life of temporary happiness.

3. The book brings the Reader to the end slowly and gently. I have avoided abruptness here, to prevent the Reader from suspecting the advent of the extreme unpleasantness to follow. I have started non-commitally, with a cough. The Reader is not expect to know, until the tension rises, that the cough is the symbol of ruin, that it is sinister, and within months, deprives the Boy of the very thing he loves most. As a final touch, Kate Rendon brings his suffering to orgasm, before being mercifully punished and driven to take her life.

1. Odd Child. I do not agree that most adults would find it difficult to relate to such an "odd child" namely the Boy. In most of the classics, the odder a protagonist is, the keener the Reader is to try to relate to him, as a spirit of the perverse exists in the minds of all Readers of books, even if these Readers are conventional. Also, in oddity, there is more intrigue as the Reader is left in suspense before being told what the odd protagonist is going to do next. Germane to this argument is the authorial presentation of Crime and Punishment. Readers of this book tend to flock to Raskolnikov like moths to a light. Why do you think they do this? The answer is that his entire character structure is glaringly at variance with that of an ordinary, every-day "run of the mill kid".

 

I have also explained why the boy is so odd. Not only did his mother raise him strangely and expose him to corruption. She died, while he watched, in horrendous circumstances. Although Miranda and Rosen turn up as stabilisers, the Boy is bullied in observing religious devotions, by his first foster-father, as well as his school. His upbringing was secular, and the notion that he should depart from the godlessness his mother instilled in him, is repellent, threatening and intrusive, in his eyes. He does not want to be exposed to threats of hell fire. He wants to be as free as his mother made him.

 

Not only is it understandable that he is odd. Although he is impertinent, brilliant, ribald and pompous, his mixture of originality and vulnerability would surely invite any Reader to love him.

2. Juliet. (The first character to die). On your advice, I have taken out the reference to her being a nanny and lasting for 10 minutes. You advised me to draw her out but I do not see how I can. I have given her dozen of decorative characteristics. She is shown to be mischievous, promiscuous, and public spirited (as seen in her caring attitude towards the mentally-disturbed William Rendon). She is vivacious, lively, naughty, tender, sympathetic and loyal, the latter trait being seen abundantly when she comforts her desolate, newspaper owning father during the printers’ strikes which threaten to break him.

I really have covered this character with meat, padding and every literary ingredient possible. I cannot add more, except Miranda’s additional references to her, in the second edition.

3. Mortuaries and Necrophilia. You did not mention this problem but my common sense has forced me to remove the section regarding Professor Robert’s Tea-Party. I later felt that it came into the category of farce and had a Carry on Up the Stiffs, Jolly Hockey Sticks underlying denouement. I felt that so many pages about necrophilia would profoundly irritate the Reader and make mockery out of the Author.

It has now been taken out.

4. To end. I hope I have covered all the points you raised in your Report, and that the extensive amendments I have made, have produced an acceptable, scholarly and engaging presentation. Of all the characters, Ian Rosen is the one I favour most and I have succumbed to unprofessional, authorial weakness by having gone "soft" on him. It was an uphill struggle to force my intellect to dominate my emotions, and to effect this end, I dismantled the first edition 12 times. I am quite sure that I have concealed, competently and skilfully, my feelings about this character from the reader.