The Navigator of New York by Wayne Johnston

Review of The Navigator of New York
By
Wayne Johnston

Nobody called ‘Wayne” should ever write a novel. Waynes are cowboys, addicted to action, with no time for insight and no interest in probing depths of characters.

Wayne Johnston’s The Navigator of New York has enough action packed into it to drive three novels, but it is short on theme and sympathetic characters. It overplays its plot devices and botches its climax.

“Write about what you know.” This is the first lesson in every creative writing class. Part One of this book is set in Newfoundland and follows the first twenty years of Devlin Stead. Johnston comes from Newfoundland and draws on first hand experience. I loved the first section of this book. It has a frisson of authenticity. I developed an interest in young Devlin as the plot unfolded through the eyes of a child growing up in this interesting outpost.

But by the time Part Two started I was already losing interest in this self-centred young man who threw away the affection of the one person who had loved him consistently and unconditionally. However, a theme was emerging: Can we choose our own adventure in life, or are we doomed to recreate the failures of our parents? Aunt Daphne’s fleeting worry that Devlin might have inherited the instability of his parents is the pretext for the cruel way in which this self-absorbed young man treats her. But how is this theme developed? Throughout the rest of the book, Devlin undertakes nothing without the direction of Dr. Cook. He is a lifeless puppet, animated by Cook. He accomplishes nothing through his own initiative. Then we find out that Francis Stead was not his father, so, oops, guess he doesn’t have to worry about those genes. Then we find out that his mother was murdered, so, guess we don’t have to worry about his being suicidal either. So it’s pfsssst, fizzle for that theme.

You could say that the setting is a strength of this novel. I concede that I found the descriptions of New York City at the turn of the century interesting, although they lacked the vigour of the first-hand observations that authenticated the descriptions of Newfoundland. Ultimately, I thought that Johnston had done a lot of research on the subject and was showing off what he knew. For a plot-driven novel this was a bit of a brake. Certainly the scene of the Washington Congress of The National Geographic Society was interesting. The excitement surrounding the possible planting of the American flag at the North Pole was like the excitement of the flight to the moon. It was interesting to learn about Peary and the emotional climate supporting exploration at that time. The descriptions of the calving of an iceberg, and the colours of the polar icecap were interesting, and quite a challenge for Johnston to write, seeing that he has never been further north than St. John’s. Guess he watched some videos.

And how about those plot devices? How tiresome did you find those letters? Couldn’t anybody just speak face to face? And how many letters forbade replies? I return to poor Aunt Daphne, the character for whom I had the most sympathy. Why was she forbidden to write to Devlin when he was in New York, for heaven’s sake? And what’s with this final enigmatic letter from Dr. Cook? Could he not have met Devlin in that ridiculous “Dakota” one more time?

Well, I admit that I was getting tired of Cook’s revelations. How many times did we get new twists to his tale? His revelations were the chief driver of the plot. It was like taking part in a murder mystery parlour game.

As for Cook’s character…. As he revealed more of his nefarious doings, I had the feeling that we were peeling the skin off an onion, and that eventually, there would be nothing there. How right I was! His character disintegrated before our eyes. From being a man with an answer to every problem, whether it concerned partying with the Vanderbilts or organizing an Arctic expedition, he disintegrated into a liar and a murderer, among other things. But where was the lead-up to this sudden unravelling of the heroic fabric that wrapped the driver of our plot? Has Johnston ever heard of foreshadowing? This little device does a lot to draw a reader into a plot and explain sudden twists in a tale. That’s lesson two in the creative writing course, and we don’t think that Johnston ever got there.

Now about the plot: How much was packed in there? Do we really need to have that unconvincing romance with Kristine? And let’s cut out Dr.Cook’s complicated relationship with his wife. I guess they had to be on the outs so that she wouldn’t go along to the parties and spoil all the fun. And all that strange behaviour in the “Dakota”, where did it lead? Let’s cut out the whole chapter about boyhood bullying, and if we are fiddling with fact and fiction in this book, let’s just have one trip to Mt. McKinley.

I am sorry to say that when I finished this book, I did not have sympathy for a single character (except Aunt Daphne!) Johnston does not know how to create believable characters. Good writers speak of how their characters become so real to them that they end up driving the plot. Johnston is so hurry-up with his plot development that his characters become mannequins.

Let’s think for a moment about Uncle Edward, as an example. This is a man who took in, sheltered and financed a child abandoned by his brother, suspecting that he might not be his brother’s son. Edward does a post-mortem on Amelia and has a choice: say nothing and let her death be interpreted by the townspeople, or announce a murder and unleash a certain scandal, maybe implicating his brother. He has Devlin in his house for ten years. His wife forsakes his company for the boy’s, and Devlin is a constant reminder to him of his brother’s disappointment. There is material here to make a complex and interesting character. But we see only his negative side. Johnston has not taken the time to get to know him.

The big character problem is the lack of sympathy elicited for Devlin, who, by the way, does not even visit his uncle when he returns to St. John. I guess he didn’t mature very much, despite his adventures. In the end, we don’t know him at all. What makes him laugh? What can we admire about him? What are his interests? What would break his heart? What endears him to us? What problems did he have at the beginning that he resolved at the end? All we get is this constant narrative featuring the word, “I.” By the end of the book, I was heartily sick of this self-centred, egoistic bore.

Finally, there is the botched climax. What is this? What sense does this make? Cook took three men for months on a perilous trip to nowhere? They walked all that distance across the polar icecap to nowhere? What was he trying to prove? Who would be his witness? Devlin was known to be his slave, the Eskimos were not traceable, he left his notes with the employee of his enemy. What is all this about? And do I really care? A climax is followed by a dénouément (lesson three). Readers are not supposed to be left with unanswerable questions.

I had to write this response to this book because all I could find in my internet research were glowing reviews. But I do not think that this is good literature. It is an adventure story in the genre of Crichton and Grisham. Maybe not as good.


Esther MacLeod