‘For Gus the fearful things which lurk for most of us at the ragged edges of consciousness were mere flimflam rubbish and piffle before the wind. With agile innocence, he simply stepped over them or swept them aside.This, it came to me, in an access of gratitude – as I drank a generous measure of his excellent single malt, in the smoky, familiar room, and felt the muscles in my neck and shoulders beginning to ease – was why I loved him. It was also why it was easy to tell him when I was afraid.’ ( p.63)
This is great characterisation. Like James at his best, the idea of ‘Gus’ unfolds before our eyes as ‘Gus’ is discovered by the narrator. Hence the ‘staging’ and momentum of the passage until we get to the admission of vulnerability at the close of the reflection.
So far Gus is the centre of the book for me, for despite his only occasional appearances he lives more fully and is more present than any of the other characters. They are all (of necessity) veiled and hidden even and especially from themselves. But Gus is different. Here, Vickers tells us precisely why. He has largesse; he has perspective; he is more truly alive. Wouldn’t we all want to sit in that room for a hour or so?!
And i do wonder about the choice of ‘access’ for ‘excess’ here ? Presumably it is a dilemna which raises questions about the narrator whose words seem at times, untrustworthy? Or is it a typo? !! I can’t make up my mind and too sunny to ponder ! But ironically apt in such a book with its focus upon choices…
But ‘agile innocence’ is great! A real spot on phrase….clean and fresh somehow.