What do you think?
Rate this book


272 pages, Paperback
First published April 14, 1997
Europa and Destiny are very much a pair, as are a number of my earlier novels. By now I was after something radically new in terms of structure, rhythm and voice. Both novels are feverish and fast, equally engaging emotionally and intellectually. Europa runs a disastrous love affair against a trip to the European Parliament, Destiny presents a man trying to leave his Italian wife of thirty years after the announcement of the suicide of their only son. But funny, I promise you. One couldn’t bear to write these stories without the humour.
I’ve been looking for a long time for ways to change stylistically. I wanted to find a voice that would really be new and different. It’s a voice of obsession. And it’s a voice of exclusion. Basically I was interested in dealing with a particular state of mind, the state of total disillusionment and outrage with just the simple fact that in this case is exemplified by the faithlessness of this woman, but also his own faithlessness and the way the world changes and the way it isn’t what you wish it to be.
Very much in evidence, though not referred to directly, is the Austrian arch-pessimist Thomas Bernhard as much a maximalist as Beckett was ever a minimalist. At times Bernhard’s supremely powerful ghost seems about to wrestle Tim Parks to the floor, but then as Harold Bloom has pointed out in his speculations on the anxiety of influence, it is only the powerful writers who are worth taking on, and Parks is still standing at the end of the book.
Anyone who uses the long sentence to express misanthropy is likely to be in Bernhard’s shadow, but in the case of Europa the homage could hardly be more clear. Here are the same arias of denunciation, the same rancorous idealism raging against the modern world and all its debasements, the same disgusted relish of cliché (last, but by no means, as they say, least’) the same obsessive mulling over past events.
Every now and then in the course of their vast paragraphs, Bernhard’s narratives would direct their anger inwards, but it was possible to feel that they were turning the knife on themselves largely for a change of pace. Parks goes further in this line: one passage in particular in Part Two which starts off as a savaging of anonymous hotel décor with particular reference to a reproduction Picasso on a wall in Strasbourg, move on from Bernhard pastiche to something new, with Jerry’s realisation that his hatred of the image is in part a projection of something he hates in himself.
At one point, Tim Parks comes up an exemplary description of his borrowed method when he refers to ‘those increasingly frequent conversations where one feels that one must reconstruct the entire history of Western thought just to know the undesirable parts down again, say absolutely everything in order to say anything at all. Parks derives from Bernhard a rigour and a thickness of texture highly unusual in British writing, a mixture not conventionally readable, but thoroughly compelling.
Towards the end of the book, there is a slight concession to melodrama – when a writer gets as much as this out of minor incidents, conventional plot developments seem redundant, and Bernhard for one hardly bothered with them. But Tim Parks must be congratulated on a major feat of literary digestion, and a snake that has eaten a goat is entitled to a few hiccups.
Perhaps I can just add my ha’pennny’s worth on the relationship with Bernhard. First, there were elements typical of Bernhard already in my writing, particularly Goodness, before I came across the Austrian author. So, no doubt he came as a revelation, and clearly his voice is so strong that one thinks twice before borrowing from it. Three things persuaded me it was possible. First, I had read this German author in Italian, whereas I write in English. This translation at two removes guarantees a certain transformation. Second, Bernhard never wrote about sex, and this story is a story of erotic obsession. Third, aside from Holzfellen, Bernhard, as Mars Jones remarks, uses little plot. My work has always been extremely densely plotted, and this because I actually feel life is dense with surprise and incident and revelation. In this regard it is a misreading to suggest that there is ‘a concession to melodrama’ at the end of the book. The narrator’s memories are full of melodramatic incident, his state of mind constantly threatens a possible explosion in action. The irony that that action eventually comes from elsewhere, unpredicted by anybody, only suggests that perhaps other individuals close to the narrator are going through the same mental hell, perhaps worse, without his being aware of it, as no one is aware of his predicament.
Yes, that it was a mistake, I reflect. .. that it was a big mistake to have come on this trip, I have never doubted from the moment I agreed to it, and perhaps even before, if such a thing is possible. Or let’s say that the very instant I took this decision was also the instant I recognized, and recognized that I had always recognized, that coming on this trip was one of those mistakes I was made to make.