“The Chemistry of Tears” by Peter Carey

“The Chemistry of Tears” by Peter Carey   (2012) – 227 pages

 

“The Chemistry of Tears” is a novel that alternates between two entirely separate time periods and two main characters.  One storyline is that of Henry Brandling in the middle of the nineteenth century who wants to get a special clock toy built for his terribly ill two-year old son.  This special clock toy is a mechanical duck that can quack, eat grain, and even defecate.  He winds up in Germany among the best cuckoo clock makers of the nineteenth century.

 The other storyline involves modern day academic Catherine Gehrig who, in her early forties and mourning the death of her lover, is given the assignment of doing original research on Brandling.

 I suppose the structure of “The Chemistry of Tears” is quite similar to that of the novel “Possession” by A. S. Byatt which also alternates between a story about people in the past and the story of modern day academics studying them.  However, for me, “Possession” was a complete success, while “The Chemistry of Tears” did not work for me at all.  The two stories in “Possession” enhance each other and combine to make a deeply moving novel.  I never could see how the two stories in “The Chemistry of Tears” fit together on any emotional level. 

 The parts of “The Chemistry of Tears” that take place in nineteenth century Austria are as intricate,  complicated, and contrived as the mechanical clocks and toys that these craftsmen are building.  Very early on in the novel I realized that the payoff from this nineteenth century storyline of the novel was not going to justify the huge effort required to completely figure it out.  I grew impatient with this storyline and annoyed with my inability to figure out what was supposed to be going on.  Somehow I slogged through, but this convoluted storyline left me irritated.

 The parts of “The Chemistry of Tears” about Catherine and her modern day research are marginally better, just because Catherine is a more vivid dramatic character than Henry Brandling.  However, this modern story is dragged down by the research she is doing on this old Austrian story.   Also, even though some parts of the ‘Catherine’ story are well-written and interesting, I still haven’t figured out what the point of the whole thing is. 

 The bottom line is that I disliked “The Chemistry of Tears” more than any novel I’ve read since “The Marriage Plot”.   Whereas in “The Marriage Plot” I actively detested the three main characters, in “The Chemistry of Tears” I lacked sufficient interest in the two main characters and simply didn’t care what happened to them.  I was detached and disinterested in the stories, didn’t understand how the two stories fit together, and was irritated to spend so much time and effort trying to follow what was going on.  

 On the back cover of “The Chemistry of Tears”, the novel is described as ‘Dickensian’.  Charles Dickens is by no means my favorite novelist, but the only thing that is Dickensian in “The Chemistry of Tears” is that much of it takes place in the nineteenth century.  When I consider how moved I always am by “The Christmas Carol”, it seems almost a sacrilege to call “The Chemistry of Tears” Dickensian.