Despite the straightforwardness of the premise - fictional memoirs of polar bears - I found the actual story very difficult to make sense of. It is organized in three sections, one for each bear generation, and each section is radically different from each other. The first, "The Grandmother: An Evolutionary Theory", focuses on the earliest of the three generations of polar bears. Although the bear herself is unnamed, the world in which she exists is portrayed in detail...and this is where things begin to get weird.
The "grandmother bear" is born and grows up in the USSR, raised by a bear trainer and works in a circus. The world itself is presented in a realist way, but with one crucial difference - animals and humans live amongst each other and can hold conversations. The way that animals and humans interact with each other is so seamless and natural, without a hint of fear or awkwardness. In fact, the polar bear lives in an apartment complex with lots of other people, and visits the landlady for vodka. The bear eventually leaves the circus, attends conferences around the Soviet Bloc countries, and finally decides to write her memoir. A memoir that is published by a man named Sea Lion and his independent press. A memoir that, when it becomes popular, allows the polar bear to live in exile in West Germany and then move to Canada. In Canada, the bear meets her "husband", with whom they have a cub named Tosca and move back to Germany.
Part two, titled "The Kiss of Death" is about Tosca and her life in a circus. Unlike the previous section, this is primarily narrated by Barbara, a human who works in the circus and, later, in an act with Tosca. This story is really more about Barbara's life, and only mentions Tosca tangentially. Although Barbara and Tosca do have some form of communication, it is not as outright and prevalent as was the case with the "grandmother polar bear". It is clear that Tosca is a bear - no ambiguity about the species here. The title refers to a circus trick where Barbara puts a sugar cube on her tongue, and Tosca would come and take it from her, thereby appearing as though they're kissing. At the end of the section, Tosca talks about meeting a bear named Lars, with whom she has two cubs - one of which is named Knut.
Part three is called "Memories of the North Pole", and explores the relationship between the polar bear Knut and his handler at the Berlin Zoo, Matthias. There is no conversation between these two at all, but sometimes when Matthias is asleep, he dreams about talking with Knut. He devotes his life to caring for Knut, who was born prematurely and needs regular feeding and medical care. Tosca abandoned her cub at birth, and she explains that it was done to allow her to work on her own writing. Matthias creates a bond with Knut that is very much like a mother and her son. Knut is at his calmest and happiest when Matthias is there, and he suffers greatly when Matthias dies suddenly of a heart attack.
My experience of reading Memoirs of a Polar Bear, especially the first section, was incredible frustration. The presented landscape is realistic and rooted in the world as it really was, yet the characters are a mixture of humans and animals who can communicate with each other. I kept going back and forth about whether the characters were metaphors or not. Was the polar bear writing what I was reading? Was any of this really happening? From one page to the next, the reader is left unsure of exactly what is going on. I actually wrote lots of notes (on sticky-tabs, because I read a library copy) to myself about what I thought was happening at the time, to try and figure it out. I still haven't figured it out.
Were the characters all animals? Were they representative of people? Did the characters (especially in the first section) see themselves as animals, but were viewed by everyone else as humans? Was it all of the above? Through this inconclusiveness and intermingling, was the author proposing that animals and humans are really one in the same - not so different from each other? Was it a treatise on animal rights? The "grandmother bear" makes constant references to her "paw-hand" and her "snout", which would seem to indicate animal-hood, but perhaps she is a woman who sees herself in a more animalistic light. Or perhaps the author is invoking bear imagery that is associated with the USSR. There is no clarity or consistency with these references, so the reader is left to make his/her own conclusions. There are so many questions, yet the author doesn't even suggest that one may be possible over another.
Where the book truly succeeds is in giving a rich, interior life to a species that are often feared and hunted. The polar bears are shown as having desires, disappointments, needs, hopes, and love. Through this, the reader is encouraged to feel empathy for the three main characters. Where the book fails is in its inconsistent use of the bizarre and ambiguous. There was a lack of internal connection and consistency that hindered the overall story and its impact. I will freely state that I have no problem reading books where I have no idea what's going on. What I do find problematic is where that technique is used as a trope, and doesn't serve (or even muddles) the overall story. If the bizarre is used for its own sake, I don't care for it. That was, unfortunately, my experience in Memoirs of a Polar Bear.
Librorum annis
