Kara Ireland
Dr. Shelden
ENGL 4570
September 27, 2019
Intent to Write an Autobiography
Muriel Spark’s novel, Loitering with Intent introduces Fleur Talbot as a typist for the Autobiographical Association. In essence, one can rightly assume that she has developed the skills necessary for constructing her own autobiography. Fleur supplied the knowledge that “one day [she’ll] write the tale of [her] life,” and there’s reason to believe it came to fruition in Loitering with Intent (Spark 135). Fleur has constituted that the truth is not as interesting as the embellishments she makes to the autobiographies of others, claiming she had “found all their biographies so very dull” otherwise (Spark 78). She continues to say that “memoirs are only valuable if they are extremely unusual in themselves, or if they attach to an interesting end-product,” and one has reason to suspect she reserves the same sentiment for her own life stories (Spark 78). Fleur is a self-professed “myth-maker,” and that further removes credibility from her favor, all while granting her with the creative license necessary to write an appealing work (Spark 95). What could be more compelling than characters who come alive from a text, exactly as Fleur describes the events of the Autobiographical Association and her writing of Warrender Chase? I posit that while the notion that Loitering with Intent is Fleur’s autobiography has merit, so does the chance that it is merely another fiction. In this paper, I will argue that Fleur’s autobiography, titled “Loitering with Intent,” juxtaposes the relationship between truth and appeal. Fleur’s account of her life events is inherently unreliable. Muriel Spark is exposing the mutually exclusive relationship between truth and appeal through an unreliable narrator that tells a compelling story. The components that make Fleur’s story interesting do not necessarily have to do with its accuracy; Muriel Spark illuminates the notion that every piece of fiction contains some form of embellishment, thus making all fiction unreliable.
The word I am choosing is “unreliable,” succinctly defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “not reliable,” or “that cannot or should not be relied on” (“Unreliable”). Because of this fallible definition, I thought it necessary to then define ‘reliable.’ Reliable is defined as “of a person, information, etc.: able to be trusted” or “accurate” (“Reliable”). It is doubtful that Fleur’s account of events is trustworthy, recalling her various admissions of the contrary. Fleur often contradicts herself in her stance of modeling her characters after her counterparts; she consequently claims that “contradictions in human character are one of its most consistent notes” (Spark 25). I believe there is an incentive to considering Fleur a character within her own autobiography, who is subject to being paradoxical; she also, by default, fulfills the role of the contradictory, unreliable narrator while simultaneously retaining general interest.
Functioning with the knowledge that the prefix ‘auto’ denotes that it is given by oneself about oneself, autobiography is a specific rendition of the word ‘biography.’ Biography, which is “a themed narrative history of a specific subject in any of various written, recorded, or visual media” maintains aspects of truth (“Biography”). Loitering with Intent is undoubtedly depicting a narrative history of events, but when scrutinizing the word ‘history,’ one finds that it is “a narration of incidents, esp. (in later use) professedly true ones” (“History”). Truth is the single factor that loses its precedence in the definition of autobiography. It is seemingly not required that autobiographies be truthful, but as an instance of history, it should be. However, when autobiographies blur the barriers of truth and appeal, Fleur is able to thrive.
Fleur thrives indeed as a typist whose primary job is to adapt the autobiographies of the members of the Autobiographical Association. Fleur says of the members that she has “set them on to writing fictions about themselves,” and it should also be taken into account while consuming the events that this is a fiction about herself (Spark 78). Muriel Spark made the decision to write Loitering with Intent in first person, in past tense; recounts of memories are often done in the same fashion. Loitering with Intent has a clear beginning and end as Spark decides to confine the story to “the last day of a whole chunk of [Fleur’s] life”; this is the story of Fleur’s journey to becoming a novelist (1). When considering how memory informs autobiography, it must be understood that memory itself is unreliable; people do not remember accurate accounts upon each subsequent remembrance, but merely the last time they remembered said event. The details become hazy as one gets further from the actual occurrence. The process of compiling several life events chronologically must take some months to complete, and being months removed from an incident lessens the accuracy of its account. By the nature of memory, all autobiographies may be disputed.
Fleur demonstrates this inconsistency of memory in her inability to maintain a stance on whether or not Sir Quentin is Warrender Chase. Fleur admits to always searching for “what could feed [her] imagination ... for Warrender Chase,” and after that explicit confession, all protestations of influence become moot (Spark 22). She claims that “it was almost as if Sir Quentin was unreal and [she] had merely invented him, Warrender Chase being a real man, a real man on whom [she] had partly based Sir Quentin,” when, of course, it is the opposite; Warrender Chase is the manifestation of Sir Quentin (Spark 124). Throughout the novel, Fleur reveals that Sir Quentin is Warrender Chase, Edwina is Prudence, and that Maisie Young is Marjorie; “I ... liked Maisie Young ... she reminded me ... of my character Marjorie in Warrender Chase” (Spark 62). Fleur staunchly claims she does not write about those around her, yet she has an attribution to every person in her environment to her novel. When questioned if it was “true [she’s] written a novel about [them],” Fleur resists the accusation that has become apparent to all of her counterparts, to which she had idly admitted previously (Spark 75). She also notes that “complete frankness is an illusion,” which removes accountability and honesty from herself (Spark 70). Fleur’s inconsistencies as the narrator suggest that she has indeed adapted her counterparts into her characters, despite the protestations of the act.
It is unlikely that Sir Quentin began manifesting himself as Warrender Chase in Fleur’s perception, and Fleur seconds it with “it seemed quite unlikely that [her] own novel could be entering into [her] life to such an extent (Spark 123). She continues with the rational statement that “such events as [she’d] portrayed, even a different way from the reality, could happen” (Spark 143). Sir Quentin attributes the accusation of such to “delusions of grandeur,” but it can merely be attributed to an instance of fiction (Spark 80). This instance is a fictional account to make the autobiography more interesting. To further solidify Fleur’s unreliability, she states herself that she is “an artist, not a reporter,” and thus, she has no affinity towards accuracy or facts and no incentive to be reliable (Spark 104).
Muriel Spark has created an interesting dialogue regarding the components of storytelling in her creative choices with Loitering with Intent. There is no contest about Fleur’s reliability, but the ways it is dismantled throughout the text is the most compelling. Spark has created an unreliable character that does not necessarily equate to being a liar. There are inconsistencies, contradictions, and resistance driving Fleur’s character, but Spark has not depicted a character that is malicious by any means. The art of curating a character with just enough lapses to discredit Fleur’s story without discrediting her as a character is a testament to Spark’s talent. Although she is unreliable, Fleur is not unlikable or hard to believe; her story is compelling, yet inconsistent. Her narrative is interesting with multiple angles of appeal. Spark has mastered capturing and keeping audience attention despite frustrations with the narrator telling it.
It is an important skill to possess because it humanizes everyone. Fleur is the vehicle for several people who add details to a narrative in order to grasp the attention of their audiences. Fleur is not a villain for being unreliable, just as most who tell white lies to maintain their appeal are not villainous. The juxtaposition of truth and appeal is expertly conveyed throughout the novel and remains a pillar for the consideration of how people consume media. Knowing when to embellish and when to make accurate accounts is contingent on the receipt of the audience; Spark has demonstrated her understanding of how to maintain control of the appeal, evidenced in her execution of Loitering with Intent.
Works Cited
“Biography, Noun.” Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford UP, 2019, https://www-oed-com.proxy.kennesaw.edu/view/Entry/19219?rskey=kzifE0&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid.
“History, Noun.1 and B.” Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford UP, 2019, https://www-oed-com.proxy.kennesaw.edu/view/Entry/87324?rskey=vzwi1i&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid.
Spark, Muriel. Loitering with Intent. Avon Books, 1981.
“Unreliable, Adj.” Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford UP, 2019, https://www-oed-com.proxy.kennesaw.edu/view/Entry/217036?redirectedFrom=unreliable#eid.