Critics’ Forum
Literature
The Authentic in Fiction: Aris Janigian’s Bloodvine
By Hovig Tchalian
After several articles on topical subjects, I would like to discuss a
novel published before the advent of Critics’ Forum – Aris Janigian’s
Bloodvine (Heyday, 2003; Great Valley Books, 2005; all page
references are to the later edition). Perhaps the nearly four years
that have passed since its publication will help provide some
perspective on the novel.
Reviews at the time of publication ranged from the lukewarm – Booklist
noting the author’s “obviously heartfelt effort” – to the overblown – the
San Francisco Chronicle comparing Janigian to William Saroyan.
Ironically, the novel was also a finalist for Stanford University’s
William Saroyan International Prize for Writing, in the category of
fiction, in 2005. A close look at Bloodvine reveals a good first
effort but one whose flaws and missteps say as much about the current
state of English-language Armenian literature as they do about the
novel itself.
The premise of Bloodvine originates in autobiography. Janigian’s
father, nearing death, calls his son to his native Fresno and tells
him the story of the rift (the novel later calls it a “kehn”) between
him and his brother, a subject that to that point the father has
avoided bringing up with his son. In the book’s prologue, Janigian
maintains that his father’s deathbed confession drove him to
investigate the matter and write about it, albeit in fictional form.
The characterization of the work as fiction is a critical one. The
novel is certainly a fictional retelling of the feud that took place
between two brothers, now named Andy (Antranik) Demerjian and Abe
(Abraham) Voskijian, in and around 1950’s Fresno. But it also
harbors what might be called more “historical” ambitions. Perhaps as
a result, the reader feels the need both to connect with the novel
and judge it by the yardstick of its own ambitions, ones that,
unfortunately, it is not quite able to live up to.
The first few pages of Bloodvine make it clear that the novel’s fate
is intertwined with the history of the Genocide. We learn early on
that Andy and Abe are actually half-brothers. Abe’s father, a
gentleman in his community, is killed by Turkish soldiers. His
mother escapes the pogroms and makes her way to Fresno, where she
meets another immigrant, Yervant. Andy is the first of two children
and the only son the mother bears with her second husband. Yervant
turns out to be quite a volatile man, prone to pathological behavior
and fits of violence, most of which he directs toward his wife’s
first-born son, Abe. We also find out that Yervant’s father (Andy’s
grandfather), Jonig, may have been an “agha,” a Turkish sympathizer
who saved himself and his family by betraying the whereabouts of
other Armenians.
The novel’s central storyline turns on this seminal event. Abe
marries Zabel, and together they have three children. Andy marries
much later in the novel and continues until then to live with Abe’s
family on land that her mother has willed to her two sons. This
uncomfortable living arrangement eventually precipitates the feud
between the brothers, which the novel makes clear is also instigated
by Abe’s wife, Zabel. The larger issue at stake is what Zabel refers
to as the family’s bad luck, or “pakht,” and which she is certain has
revealed itself in the family’s disastrous harvests and business
dealings. Zabel attributes their collective pakht to Andy, the ill-
begotten son, and through him to Yervant, and through Yervant to his
father and what we might call his “original sin” (92-3). From
Zabel’s perspective, the fact that Andy is a “cripple” (one of his
legs is shorter than the other) may be explained biologically – he had
polio as a child – but must be understood genealogically – he is the
descendant of a traitor.
The impetus behind this genealogical perspective is the novel’s own
worldview. In the prologue, Janigian characterizes his novel as “old-
fashioned,” which no doubt it is. But its emphasis on the
relationships between fathers and sons and the propagation of sin,
treachery and violence also suggests a profoundly biblical
perspective.
The brothers’ story, in fact, concludes in an act of betrayal
reminiscent of the Old Testament story of Jacob and Esau. A few
years after Andy signs his half of the land over to Abe to help
secure a GI loan, on a handshake, Abe kicks Andy off the land,
denying him what Andy feels is his birthright, just as in the
biblical story, Jacob tricks his older brother, Esau, into signing
over his birthright for a bowl of lentil stew. Jacob will later also
trick his father (who bears the name of one of the brothers in the
novel, Abraham) into giving him his blessing. In the biblical story,
Jacob is his mother Rebecca’s favorite, as in the novel the maternal
Zabel (Abe’s pet name for her is “Ma”) prefers Abe.
This somewhat weighty purpose intrudes itself into the novel at
various points-we are subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, made to
remember that the scenery of Fresno and the surrounding valleys is
imbued with a larger, almost metaphorical, character signifying the
mysterious connection between land and blood suggested in the novel’s
title.
The book’s very first scene, in fact, makes this point quite
explicitly. A bishop and a priest are on their way to visit the
Voskijians, in order to “exorcise” their land of the curse Zabel is
convinced has befallen it. As they near their destination, the
bishop looks out of the car window at the grapevines and remarks (8):
The very land itself, it seems, is a symbol of its people’s apparent
fate, bearing its fruits in the shape of tears. And just in case we
miss that metaphorical point, the bishop adds a little further on (8):
<"[T]he vines in Armenia date back from the time of our Lord. Just
imagine, brother, the pestilence, the flood and fire, the drought and
terrible earthquake they've endured. They," he said in a survivor's
emotional voice, "have proven as resilient as the Armenian people
themselves.">
The larger point, however, is somewhat more intriguing – the suggestion
of a kind of fall from grace, from an edenic homeland that cannot be
recreated anywhere else, as the bishop once again makes clear (9):
Ironically, later in the novel, Andy’s wife Kareen, an Armenian born
in Egypt, will compare the same expanse of land unflatteringly to her
own birthplace, Alexandria (167). Janigian does more than suggest
the simple nostalgia for homeland or home in this passage; he
captures something of the tragic desire for return that seems to
propagate itself endlessly, hopelessly, in the immigrant experience.
The other side of that desire, the novel seems to suggest, is the
kind of hatred born of betrayal, a product of an agha’s actions as
much as a result of the Genocide as such. That hatred turns to self-
hatred in the brothers’ story, culminating in the final act of
betrayal captured in the title. We can hear its whispers even early
on, in the bishop’s repeated reference to the priest as “brother” (as
in the two extended quotations above). To the novel’s credit, the
tension between brotherly love and a hatred born of blind allegiance
to land is never quite resolved. Even at the very end of the novel,
before he “betrays” his brother Andy, Abe tells him, “brothers is one
thing, this land’s another” (252). But after the event, Andy
declares to himself, “your life has changed, Andy. In a matter of
minutes, thirty years of brotherhood is pulverized. Over what? Over
a piece of dirt” (265).
Janigian is at his most lyrical when describing the land the brothers
are fighting over and the wider landscape of the San Joaquin Valley,
sometimes in ominous detail (270):
In other instances, Janigian displays a keen eye for detail, such as
in this early scene, describing Abe walking into his house, during
the bishop’s exorcism (12):
<"He is cleansing the house of evil spirits," the wife whispered.
Evil spirits? Abe bowed his head and crossed his arms over his
stomach.
"Shhh," she said, as though Abe's puzzlement was audible.>
The paradoxical phrase about Abe’s puzzlement shows Janigian at his
best, allowing us to understand something about Zabel’s state of mind
and the near absurdity of the scene taking place.
But even such details, and the moving descriptions of the landscape,
when repeated in various ways throughout the novel, seem less lyrical
than repetitive. Janigian spends a good deal of time describing the
mundane details of farming life, punctuated by the “crude” speech of
farmers, barhops, family members. But we are often left to wonder
for what purpose.
Unfortunately, even the biblical parallels made at the beginning and
at the end of the novel are never developed in a clear and compelling
way, and the novel eventually loses its hold on the story and its
details and seems more confined than liberated by its promising
premise. The logic of that premise unwinds itself slowly,
inevitably, with only occasional glimpses of depth or complexity,
until nearly everything in the novel seems either weighed down by its
ponderous purpose or adrift in uneven, sometimes inconsequential,
prose. As a result, the novel begins to plod along a little less
than halfway through, as though hoping to generate momentum through
the various descriptions themselves.
The descriptions that proliferate in the novel, therefore, often get
the better of the story. Many of the book’s less successful moments
are a result of Janigian giving in a little too much to his penchant
for metaphor and comparison. In the crucial moment after Abe
threatens Andy and asks him to leave their land for good, Andy
considers what it means, and we are told: “when a man is in the
clutch of such unknowns, time thickens, time turns into a beehive,
palpable and agonizingly porous” (265). The phrases here are awkward
and oddly misplaced. Why should time be a “beehive,” and why are we
to imagine that it is “porous”?
In other instances, it is difficult to see what purpose a comparison
serves at all. When Andy is confused by the reaction of a prostitute
he meets, we read the following simile: “This was like giving a
photograph to a blind man and getting upset that he didn’t appreciate
it. Even after he told you he was blind, even after you saw that he
lived among the blind, in a blind world.” (43). In yet other cases,
the description could simply benefit from more or better editing,
such as when we see Andy making his early morning drive to work the
land (262):
[Crossed out by
author of article.]
Janigian crafts the description well, giving us a sense of Andy’s
mood, not only at this moment but more generally. But the passage
also exhibits the writer’s occasional inability to exhibit restraint
and his tendency of saying too much.
An additional result of these inconsistencies is that the thrust of
the story is sometimes overwhelmed by details, so that even the
subtler ones are not given their due. A perfect example is an
interesting parallel between the descriptions of two very different
characters, Abe and the prostitute mentioned earlier. Both are
described as agitated and nervous, barely able to sit still. When
Andy and Abe sit on the porch early in the novel, we see that “Abe
pulled up a chair and sat on the edge, as if he might soon have to
leave” (19). A few pages later, we see Andy reluctantly visiting a
whorehouse. The woman he meets there, once she finds out Andy only
wants some company, is described in almost identical terms as Abe: we
are told that “she sat on the edge, like she might have to go at any
second,” presumably to talk with more promising clients (42).
The descriptions together form a kind of word picture, a visible
symbol of “displacement,” of people whose itinerant nature has made
them unable to sit still in their own seats – Abe as a second-
generation farmer struggling to survive and the prostitute as someone
moving restlessly from one client to the next. The parallel phrasing
imagines a fate shared by two people from entirely different walks of
life. For a brief moment, the “immigrant experience” belongs to the
local as much as to the Armenian.
But perhaps this is reading too much into an otherwise accidental
parallel. Unfortunately, without the novelist’s sure hand guiding
us, we are left to ponder the coincidence on our own. The effect
carries through the entire novel. Perhaps we are meant to see the
metaphorical grafting of old vines to new, ancient land to modern, as
a different representation of the family itself – Abe’s family having
been “grafted” unnaturally to Andy’s by way of Yervant’s marriage.
The issue of birthright in the biblical parallels seems to point
here. Andy’s given name, for instance, is Antranik (“first-born,” in
Armenian). And although he is not his mother’s first-born son, the
fact that he is his father’s eldest seems to compel him, despite
himself, to live up to his name and form a family of his own.
Numerous parallels such as these exist. But very few of them are
tied together or developed convincingly.
The most glaring example here is the final “betrayal” in the novel,
when Abe walks up to Andy, shotgun by his side, and seems to threaten
him into leaving their land for good (264):
<"You've got nothing left here," Abe says. "It's over." There is a
certain hysteria in his voice, a kind of panic.
There's Andy, looking down the barrel of a shotgun. . . .
"All right, Abe," Andy says.
Abe drops the gun to his side, slowly, like he might lift it up
again. Andy doesn't know if he's shivering from the cold or the
uncanniness of it all or both. Already he knows, even before he's
out of harm's way, that nothing will ever match this moment.>
This long-anticipated “moment” in the novel, when it arrives, is
oddly devoid of significance, symbolic or otherwise, or a compelling
connection to the themes of home or birthright. Fixated as it is on
the mundane fact of the shotgun itself, the passage comes across as
neither epic nor even particularly profound, descending instead into
melodrama, a simple spat between two brothers. The passage tells us
that this is indeed a momentous event but fails to show us that it is
so.
Later in the novel, Abe will get his comeuppance of sorts, losing
his sanity for a time and, some weeks later, spilling his blood on a
vine after crashing his tractor into the post holding it up, which
leads to his death. That post, it turns out, is the same one next to
which Abe threatened his brother. The symbolic point is made, but
far too late to generate thematic or dramatic tension.
Aris Janigian’s Bloodvine represents a strong first effort and a
promising start to a writing career. But the novel’s flaws also say
as much about the future of English-language Armenian literature as
they do about Janigian’s own career. The concerns mentioned above
are not insurmountable. The novel’s only unforgivable offense, in
fact, is its characterization of Zabel and her mother, Angel. With
their connivances, superstitions and constant stream of akhhs, they
are little more than caricatures.
This final point brings us full circle, back to the issue we started
with – the novel’s status as fiction. We can now recast that statement
as the novel’s view of its own “authenticity,” in other words, its
relationship to the diasporan Armenian experience in all its
complexity, from the historical Genocide to the fictional spirits
haunting Angel’s memory. A final excerpt from the novel related to
this point will help us conclude.
A third of the way through the novel, the brothers meet with an
attorney named Saroyan, who turns out to be a “distant cousin”
of “this writer Saroyan” (89). When the three sit down in his
office, the attorney suggests that his more famous relative is only
interested in talking about “Armenians, old-time Armenian things that
only an odar would be interested in. What the hell do I need to hear
about Armenians?,” the attorney laments. “I’ve got them barking in
my ear every day” (89). The irony of the statement is deepened by
our sense of the anonymous identity of those “Armenians” – the ones
inhabiting the novel’s fictional world as well as the attorney’s
office in it – as much as of the unnamed “odar.”
Perhaps it is entirely fitting, then, that Bloodvine has been
compared to William Saroyan’s works and been nominated for an award
named after him. Saroyan’s legacy, far more than Angel’s spirits,
haunts the novel and beckons to the reader, from somewhere between
the odar world and the Armenian.
All Rights Reserved: Critics Forum, 2006
Hovig Tchalian holds a PhD in English literature from UCLA. He has
edited several journals and also published articles of his own.
You can reach him or any of the other contributors to Critics’ Forum
at [email protected]. This and all other articles published
in this series are available online at To sign
up for a weekly electronic version of new articles, go to
Critics’ Forum is a group created to
discuss issues relating to Armenian art and culture in the Diaspora.
www.criticsforum.org.
www.criticsforum.org/join.