When I started reading House of Doors, I felt like I was reading a ‘classic’ Booker novel, not too dissimilar to the ones that were shortlisted during the late 70’s, 80’s and early 90’s. By this I mean great writing, tight plot, memorable characters, In fact I said to myself that it was a fine historical novel but too traditional and wouldn’t even be shortlisted, I was surprised that the judges even chose this for reasons I’ll mention below.
Then came the revelation but that will be later.
The book is about W Somerset Maugham’s visit to Penang during the 1920’s (in the book it’s to see an old friend). During this time in his life, he is unhappy in his marriage of convenience to Syrie and is in a toxic relationship with his secretary Gerald Haxton. Due to a financial error Somerset Maugham is in debt and needs a story to pull him out of it.
That story comes in the form of a tale his host’s wife tells him of the Proudlock Affair (a woman was convicted of murdering a person she was having an affair with) but at the same time tells about her husband’s affair , her dealings with Chinese revolutionary Sun Wen and her affair with his right hand person Arthur.
Eventually Somerset Maugham writes down the story of the Proudlock Affair only (this short story does exist) and then leaves Penang while the family who hosted him move to South Africa.
I thought this is a very white look at Malaysians (servants or bumblers), women are mostly looked down upon, and other cliches begin to appear in the narrative. I thought the book within a book within a book idea but I was perturbed at why the Booker judges would choose a novel that is not dissimilar to 1975’s Booker winner, Heat and Dust.
Then it struck me, thanks to a forum discussion, that Tan Twan Eng is actually using House of Doors as a means of criticising these old fashioned values in colonial literature. The book is structured as a W. Somerset Maugham novel: repressed homosexuality, extra marital affairs and a condescending look at foreigners. These are traits one sees in novels by Graham Greene or E.M. Forster, Thus House of Doors is a meta look at how the novel has changed.
House of Doors is definitely a commentary of sorts about racism, orientation, toxic relationships and sexism but it also is essentially a book about the writing process. What are the lengths an author must go through when writing a book?, how much should the written word reflect reality? and looking at the meta side of this novel; it is a look at how many ‘wrongs’ and pitfalls Anglo novelists fell into – something still seen today as Booktubers have a nasty habit of automatically thinking that translated novels are directly influenced by Anglo classics or that when literary canon lists are published most translated literature is left out.
Reading House of Doors reminded me of the subtleties, I discover when I read Ishiguro: At first it seems like I’m reading a very well written novel, then the layers start to emerge and the end result is a pretty complex one. My advice is with House of Doors is to give is not to be quick to judge it as a homage to colonial literature (as I mistakenly thought) and let the layers emerge.
The Bobsphere 