Name: Grace Higgins

Read the poem Gooseberry Season by Simon Armitage and reread The Lammas
Hireling by Ian Duhig. Compare the methods both poets use to present
unreliable narrators.

Word Count: 1676

“Gooseberry Season” and “The Lammas Hireling” both explore uncanny and unnerving
retellings of transgressive events, but the lack of certainty regarding key features such as
distinctive time frames or exact actions further amplifies the sense of unease. Notably, these
techniques create a vague suggestion or interpretation of these events, rather than directly
explaining what took place and why. Both poets use a combination of similar or contrasting
techniques to form an unreliable narrator, with the ambiguity adding to the sinister undertones
of each poem respectively.

An example of the unreliability shown is through references to guilt, which is hinted at

throughout both poems. In the very opening to “The Lammas Hireling'', the narrator recalls how
“At the fair, I’d still a light heart”. By opening with acknowledgement of the narrator’s past
feelings, there lies a suggestion or implication that those feelings have since changed, with the
previous “light heart” being heavy with potential guilt or regret. Another possible opposite to
the “light” heart could be a dark one, perhaps hinting at the narrator’s undisclosed objectives or
emotions. The distinctive contrast between the two considerable readings is where the poet
captures the essence of the unreliable narrator, whose initial intentions are not explicitly
identified. Armitage opens his poem differently, with “Which reminds me.” The end-stopped
subordinate clause suggests an immediate sense of delusion from the narrator, as it seems as
though the poem starts in the middle of a conversation, to which the first part is not shown. It is
also never explicitly stated who he is talking to, which could possibly imply he is talking to
himself. Similarly to the impact of the opening to Duhig’s poem, the ambiguity creates an
uneasy feeling towards either outcome. As both poems continue, the sense of guilt is further
emphasised throughout. Once again, the narrator in “The Lammas Hireling'' seems to remove
himself from the poem, describing how the “cattle doted on him.” The end-stop amplifies that
the speaker has said all he needs to say on the matter, and does not give his own opinions on
the hireling at this moment. Some of the narrator’s true personality comes to light a little later,
as he states that he “grew fond of company/That knew when to shut up.” This time, it is not the
narrator but rather the hireling that is removed from the poem, being reduced to “company”. By
having the unreliable narrator reduce the hireling to “company”, it has the opposite effect on
the reader, who in turn can sympathise with the hireling having been desperate for work as he
“struck so cheap”. “Knew when to shut up” also raises questions and concerns towards the
narrator’s past, as it suggests previous conflict at some point in his life. Like this narrator, the

1
Name: Grace Higgins

speaker in “Gooseberry Season” temporarily removes himself from part of the poem. The
second stanza focuses on the actions of the guest at his house, with repetitions of the male
pronoun “he”, as “he slept till Monday” and “he hung up his coat”. The focus on such mundane,
typically unimportant actions seems to provide a deeper understanding of the narrator rather
than the guest. The actions he carries out are far from special, so for the narrator to list them
out, it would seem that he is watching the guest’s every move, almost like a predator
monitoring its prey.

The inclusion of religion and mythology further serves as a tool to show the unreliability of each
narrator. In the final stanza of “The Lammas Hireling”, the narrator states,
“Bless me, Father, I have sinned.
It has been an hour since my last confession.”
Here, it seems as though the narrator has not only accepted his actions, but is showing regret in
some form. The unreliability could stem from the final part of the sentence, his “last
confession.” Earlier in the poem, he briefly mentioned his “dear late wife”, who is also a
potential link back to the “company” that did not know how to “shut up”. This suggests parallels
between the hireling and the “late wife”, possibly meaning that the narrator was responsible for
killing them both. The “last confession” could also suggest that he isn’t just suddenly turning to
religion as a means of repenting for his wrongdoings, but rather that he has been acting on his
beliefs throughout. On the surface, this could make sense. During the killing of the hireling, he
describes him as “a cow with leather horns” who is stuck in a “fox trap”, and the Bible forbids
cruelty to animals - suggesting that to the narrator, this was a good deed. In reality, it makes the
hireling’s murder all the more disturbing, which further creates a sense of delusion about the
narrator. “Cow with leather horns” is another term for a hare, which can resemble rebirth in
Christianity, serving as another potential motivation behind the narrator’s actions. Interestingly,
there have been several Christian art pieces depicting hare-headed demons, possibly suggesting
that the narrator saw the hireling as such. This could be the poet hinting at the mental conflict
the narrator is experiencing, which is made worse by his contrasting beliefs. In “Gooseberry
Season”, the religious aspects are more subtle. On his “last night” the narrator and presumably
his family “stirred his supper”, which could link to the Christian Gospel of the Last Supper,
whereby Judas betrayed Jesus. This comparison puts an interesting perspective on how the
narrator views the guest, as similarly to Judas, the betrayal was done in order to gain wealth. In
the Gospel, Judas was rewarded with thirty pieces of silver, and in this case, the narrator’s
‘reward’ could be interpreted as either his boy going “through his pockets” or the recipe for the
“smooth, seedless gooseberry sorbet”. The latter seems more likely, and links back to Judas.
Once he had received the pieces of silver, Judas returned them to the priests before hanging
himself, making the ending of the poem more sinister as it reads:
“I have been known to [...] scoop the sorbet into five equal portions, for the hell of it.

2
Name: Grace Higgins

I mention this for good reason.”

In the earlier parts of the poem, the narrator describes his “wife”, “boy”, and “girl”, so with
himself and the guest included, there are the five people mentioned here. The intertextuality
could be used to explain what happens after the end of the poem, hence he mentions it for
“good reason” but it could also simply be to show the narrator’s sense of self and state of mind.
The generalisation of him referring to the other people in the poem could be interpreted as the
speaker attempting to conceal identity, suggesting he is aware of the severity of what he has
done.

Another common link between the unreliability of both narrators is the disjointed timeframe of
events. Throughout “The Lammas Hireling”, there is no clear timeframe offered, rather the
narrative is followed by key events or places . These include “the fair”, “dreams of my late wife”,
the moon [coming] out” and the “hour since my last confession”. “The fair” and the “moon
[coming] out” can be seen as linked, as they both involve the hireling. This pattern could suggest
that the “dreams” of the speaker’s “late wife” are in some way connected to the frequent
“confessions”. The ambiguity on the subject would likely raise suspicions of the speaker’s
integrity, as it seems he is deliberately avoiding further context surrounding a potentially
important subject matter. This then raises further questions as to not only what he is avoiding,
and why. The pattern of similar events, combined with the mention of the “last confession”
could suggest that either the voice of the poem is stuck in a continuing and repeating cycle, or
that he has managed to break himself free from it. As with the other topics mentioned such as
the uncertain reality or implication of what the speaker is describing is somewhat ominous, due
to how greatly they contradict each other, varying from understandable and empathetic to
sinister and malicious. In Armitage’s “Gooseberry Season”, the title itself shows ambiguity.
“Gooseberry Season” is any time from May to August, which in itself is broad and unspecified.
The only notable date mentioned is “Monday”, which is the day he “slept till''. Each day of the
week can be said to represent a celestial body. Interestingly, Monday is said to be symbolic of
the moon; representing the stirring of future emotions. This reading could be particularly
insightful in regards to the poem, as it is after he awakes that things seem to take a turn for the
worse, as the speaker of the poem “grows tired” of the guest, which results in his demise. In the
final stanza of the poem, he could be seen as referring to the previous events as “not general
knowledge, except/in gooseberry season” . The line break before “in gooseberry season” could
be the speaker implying that the unspecified acts of transgression are common for he and his
family, specifically during that time of year. It could also suggest the way in which the family
commits these acts of transgression, with the “five equal portions” including some form of
poison for their victims. Earlier in the poem, the speaker refers to the “razor’s edge”, likely
referring to Occam’s razor, by which the simplest explanation for something is the most
probable. From the repetition of conflicting possessive pronouns such as “he” and “my”, it could

3
Name: Grace Higgins

suggest the speaker feels threatened by the presence of the guest towards his possessions,
which would then propose the motivation for going through the guest’s pockets afterwards.

In conclusion, the conflicting ideas suggested by both poets create an ominous aspect to their
speakers, as their true actions, intentions and motivations are never explicitly confirmed. This
not only creates a divide between the reader, likely metaphorical of the speaker’s incongruence
to functioning members of society, but offers two alternate readings of the poems. The contrast
between readings truly demonstrates the instability or unreliability of the speakers, not only as
narrators but as people.