The Night Watch by Sarah Waters

I'd better tell you straight off that I'm probably biased when it comes to Sarah Waters's books.  With three of her novels already under my belt, and each one excellent in its own way, it's almost a given that I was going to love The Night Watch equally well as the rest.  She's such a talented storyteller with all the right elements in all the right places--careful construction of plot that moves along at just the right pace, flesh and blood characters of depth and breadth, and everything placed against a believable backdrop, whether it's Victorian England or London during the Blitz.  Granted her last two novels have a different feel to them than her previous three Victorian stories (I've yet to read Tipping the Velvet, but it's definitely on my list for 2010), but she still knows how to tell a story with verve and panache and is easily one of my favorite novelists writing today.   

No doubt much has been said about the unusual construction of this novel (I've actually not yet read any reviews of the book other than this article penned by Waters herself and published in the Guardian).  The story covers six years in the lives of four Londoners, three women and a man, but it moves backwards in time, beginning in 1947 and ending in 1941.  The reader is introduced to these seemingly disparate characters and their friends and lovers, whose lives by the end of the story (or the beginning depending on how you think of it) will cross and intertwine in occasionally surprising ways.

I wasn't sure whether she would be able to pull off a story in this manner, or that I would like it.  As I began reading I sort of felt a sense of disappointment thinking I was at the end of the story, and this is how the lives of these characters had turned out.  I already knew the ending and where's the fun in that.  Yet she still managed to satisfy my desire for a compelling story, and while the ending wasn't necessarily of the shocking climactic sort, there were most definitely revelations, which until the end had me sitting on the edge of my seat in a few cases.  I may not necessarily have been able to identify with the characters, but I came to care about them enough to want to know more about their lives.

Secrets are what drive the story along.  Each of the main characters has a secret they are hiding--at least from the reader and perhaps from each other.  In the Guardian article Waters writes:

"I began with a handful of characters, all of them--as seemed to suit the period--more or less unhappy, and all of them with secrets; all of them involved in relationships and lifestyles which were, in one way or another, illicit."

Apparently the things that had initially drawn Waters to this period in the first place, the "blighted landscape, the austerity, the sense of inertia, and the reticence" were the things that no one in post-WWII Britain wanted to talk about.  Life after the war was dreary despite it being peacetime, and it was what had happened during the war and in the characters' pasts that was interesting.  Hence the unusual progression backwards that Waters manages so successfully.

The cover of my edition is a very apt illustration of the feel of the story--it's a dark story.  Not only do you get a sense of what life in a blackout must have felt like, but you can feel the oppression of the characters, too.  None of them are happy people.  In most cases they are in unhappy and unsatisfying relationships or alone and at loose ends and leading bleak existences.  What Waters does so masterfully is explain how they ended up that way. In some ways the war was about opportunities--for women, for leading a certain lifestyle, and when the war ended and the world righted itself, those advantages and opportunities were gone and the status quo reasserted itself. 

I'm being very vague about what actually happens in the story, aren't I.  I can tell you how things end, but somehow that doesn't seem especially meaningful, but it's almost impossible to talk about the book without giving details away and ruining it for any new readers.  I will say the relationships in the book are on the complex side, and new characters are slowly introduced without immediate explanation so the reader does need to pay close attention.  Just when things seem fairly straightforward, the story takes a step back and I had to reorient myself once again, but this is not a criticism just an observation.

I do want to mention the amount of research Waters must have poured into this novel.  She spent four years researching and writing it, and it's obvious from the result with its careful attention to details.  Once again I'm going to quote from that Guardian article (which I recommend reading if you've read the book and have an interest in the period).  I'm always curious about how an author works, and I found Waters's experiences interesting. 

"Immediately, I was both captivated by what I began to discover about wartime Britain, and disconcerted by the sheer amount of material available for research.  For information about nineteenth-century life I had been more or less limited to books; now I had a whole new set of resources: films, photographs, sound recordings, civil defence records, the physical ephemera of war, and--since so many people in the 1940s felt compelled to make a record of the startling events they saw unfolding around them--a staggering selection of diaries and memoirs.  On top of that, there was the fact of the period being still very firmly within living memory.  Giving an early public reading from the half-finished manuscript, I found myself talking confidently about what the 1940s were 'like'--then had the unnerving experience  of looking around the room and realising that many members of the audience were old enough to recall the decade for themselves."

"In one way, this was exciting; it meant that when for example, I hesitated over whether to have one of my female characters talk about her 'knickers' or her 'drawers', I had people to ask.  ('Knickers', came the rather rude reply.)  But it was also frightening.  I'd occasionally made mistakes with historical details before; now, not only did the potential anachronism and blunder seem greater, but I felt that the 1940s somehow belonged to the people who remembered living through them, and that I had a responsibility to them to get things right.  The nineteenth century always felt to me to a certain extent like a stage-set, already mythicised by its own extravagant fictions and by a century's worth of period novels and nostalgia; the era and its motifs seemed up for grabs, available for playful reinvention.  For all our overuse of wartime stereotypes--the Blitz spirit, the nylons, the gum-chewing GIs--I would have felt a bit of an upstart taking liberties like that with the 1940s."

Sorry, that was a bit long but having read both her Victorian novels and her post-war novels, it is an interesting comparison in terms of how she does her research.  I'm not sure I can pick a favorite amongst her books.  After reading The Little Stranger I was sure that was it.  I've enjoyed them all and will happily reread them.  I wonder if it's too soon to wonder what she has planned for her next?

Comments

[litlove]

Sarah Waters is a special author, I quite agree. I haven't read this one by her and much appreciated your wonderful review. That extract from the Guardian was fascinating. I will definitely be putting either this or The Little Stranger on the bedside table over the course of the next few weeks!

[Verity]

This was interesting as it was her first departure from Victoriana - I think she handled it well. I'm glad you enjoyed it!

[Sakura]

This was my favourite Sarah Waters' book so far and I'm so glad you liked it too. I'm looking forward to reading Affinity next year as I've heard great things about it too.

[Nadia]

She's on my TBR list for 2010! Thanks for the post - great review!

[Darlene]

Oh, I've been wondering the same thing...what's next?! Let me now if you hear anything Danielle and I'll do the same.

[Stefanie]

I read Tipping the Velvet and just thought it ok. Was that her first one? I should probably try another of her books since so many rave about them!

[Kathleen]

I have several of her books on my TBR shelf, including this one. I quite certain I will enjoy them all!

[Dorothy W.]

I'm so happy I have The Night Watch on my shelves! You are making me want to pick it up right away. I know from reading Fingersmith to watch out for plot twists with Waters; the structure of that book was certainly interesting, and this one sounds even better, structure-wise. She does setting and plot SO well, doesn't she?

[Danielle]

Litlove--Both are good, and even though they have similar settings (time period) they are very different stories. A ghost story is always entertaining, though the Night Watch was excellent, too. In either case you can't go wrong.
Verity--I think she did a great job, too. It was interesting reading about how she treated the periods differently in writing and it would be challenging to get the details right knowing there are people who lived during those years who would read the book!
Sakura--I think Affinity appealed to me least, but I ended up loving it! Somehow Sarah Waters just can't go wrong. I hope you enjoy it, too.
Nadia--So glad you're planning on reading her. If this is your first time, you're in for a treat!
Darlene--I will definitely share anything I hear. Now that her last book has been out for a while, perhaps she's already doing a little thinking about it...?
Stefanie--Yes, that was her first, and the only one I've not yet read. Definitely give her another try--you have to read Fingersmith. I think you'll find that a very enjoyable read!!
Kathleen--She is one of those authors whose books I had sitting around for a few years before I finally picked up and read them--and then I wondered why I had waited so long!
Dorothy--She really does know how to set the scene and keep the reader turning pages. I really liked this one, though it is different than Fingersmith--nothing quite so shocking as what she had there. But still really excellent in a different way. The structure is very different, but she manages to weave together the stories of the characters in such a way that it all makes sense by the last section. I hope you enjoy this one when you get to it!

[Lesley]

Great review! Sarah Waters is one of my favorite writers. This one would probably be my least favorite of her books, but I still loved it. I think my number one pick would be Fingersmith - it had so many twists and turns and had such a rollicking good story. I can't wait for her to come out with another book, either! She seems to be moving up in time, perhaps her next one will be set in the 1960s?

[Danielle]

Lesley--I know what you mean--even a least favored novel by Sarah Waters is still really good! I loved Fingersmith, too, and I think that will always rank high on my favorite books list. She totally pulled the rug our from under me with that one! I wonder if she will ever write anything set in contemporary times. She has a real knack, though, for books set in the past. The 1960s would be cool!

[Jacqui]

This has been on my TBR list for a while now. I should really think about grabbing it from the library in 2010 (I'm done adding more list to my short pile for 2009 - I have 12 books and definitely not enough time to read them all). Thanks for the review!

[Danielle]

Jacqui--My holiday reading pile seems to keep growing, too, and I know I can't possibly read them all in a week and a couple of days! The Sarah Waters is wonderful whenever you do finally get to it. Her books always read fast it seems.