William Rannals
Eye Contact and Avoidance

When the Katherine is first called into to court on page 420 we see that she “was separated from Malcolm and Nick, and settled in a kind of private space.” This sparked my interest into the idea of connection and separation in the next few scenes. Katherine gives her account on the witness stand without ever making eye contact with Nick or Malcolm. Whether she is overcome with shame, anger or sadness, she does not seem to want to make a connection with them.
When they break for lunch, Katherine just sits there, “shrinking into herself… head down to the table” (426). All she can think about is that she will not have to see Nick because he has to wait in the prison cell between trial sessions.
The next time that Nick looks at Katherine is on page 431 when he was looking at the girl in the cream suit. He “happens to notice Katherine; and his eyes dropped from her quite abruptly” (431). The only eye contact or recognition in the courtroom occurs between the “long thin bony leg” girl with her “cream suit” and “perfect hair” and both Nick and Katherine. It seems that this girl is noticed by both Nick and Katherine and that they both spend and ample about of time looking at her, but she offers no recognition to them. What is Hensher trying to accomplish by putting such distance between the main characters at such an important part of the novel? Why do we see this odd observance and reaction of this girl by both Katherine and Nick, and not of each other? Why isn’t Katherine curious how Malcolm or Nick looks when such revealing testimony is being presented? Why is there this obvious avoidance? Oh and why did Malcolm avoid discussing the entire situation when they got back to the house and decide to reminisce and be passive, pathetic, and paltry instead?

Bethany Davis
March 24, 2009
Contemporary British Fiction
Discussion Starter

Identities

There are two main families focused on in The Northern Clemency, the Sellers and the Glovers. Throughout the story the two Sellers children and the three Glover children all explore different identities. Not only do all of the children come into different identities, they all arrive at their various identities in very different ways. Specifically, both Alexandra Seller and Jane Glover embrace their true identities through a venue of a different cultures. Sandra, or Alex as she becomes later, finds her niche in the world not where she was born, but in the distant country of Australia. After leaving her home country of England she does nothing but realize how horrible it was in comparison with her new place in Australia, for example she claims that even her own Englishness ‘seemed repulsive’ to her, (p. 514), as well as saying that, “she never thought of England,” and that , “England was dead to her,”, (p. 516). Jane, after attempting to live a typical ‘English’ life, finds a life partner in the Australian Scott. I found the story of these two women to represent two different attitudes found in England of the time. One rejects England completely and the other adopts another’s culture within the culture and country of England.
I also found it interesting that Sandra felt that she could represent herself differently in Australia. She used her English accent in her job at the dress store to pass off a knowledge of fashion and elegance. Where does Sandra’s attitude of rejection for England come from? Her attitude was shared by many young English people of her generation. Is this attitude represented here as a good or bad thing? The descriptions of the openness and friendliness of Australia and its people make it seem like England is full of cold and strict people. But then again Sandra seems to me as one of the most cold and heartless characters in the novel. She cut off ties with her entire family and did not go to her mother in their time of need. Is rejecting your culture being equated with rejecting home and moral values here?

Nick Cooley

Locating the Clemency

Philip Hensher has written an extremely self-aware and self-reflexive book in The Northern Clemency. So it is a surprise (though perhaps it shouldn’t be, considering his flair for narrative misdirection) that the title of the novel functions differently than one may be used to in other novels—that is, if my memory is correct, there is no reference to the title in the novel, no phrase from which the title is obviously lifted, no passage that provides that “aha!” moment. This from an author who, according to contemporarywirters.com, believes that novels are “closed linguistic worlds.”

The question then becomes, what does the title “mean”? Who or what is granted clemency? Does each major character experience a degree of clemency? From what or whom? I would include in this line of questioning the city of Sheffield, as prominent a character in the novel as any. Assuming that the title doesn’t refer to the weather in South Yorkshire, what sort of clemency can be said to be granted to Sheffield? Is it a nod to her natural environment? Her industrial and resource driven history and economy? Who is granting the clemency?

Interesting note:

Sheffield is one of the safest British cities in which to live and work. A third of it lies within the Peak District National Park (no other UK city has a national park within its boundary). It’s also England's greenest city, containing 150 woodlands and 50 public parks, and half of the city's population lives within 15 minutes of open countryside.

(http://www.yorkshire-forward.com/our-wonderful-region/our-cities/sheffield-the-facts)