Maestro

The protagonist of Peter Goldsworthy’s ‘Maestro’, Paul Crabbe, is also the narrator of the novel who presents his past to the reader. The mental image Paul Crabbe gives of himself is one of a selfish and admittedly egocentric teenager who although is undoubtedly talented, believes that he can become great with little or no personal effort. Indeed this paints a stark contrast to Paul’s piano teacher Eduard Keller, whose his moral values regarding attitude to hard work and perseverance are unyielding. Paul ultimately lacks the mental drive to become a world-class pianist as well as becoming the victim of self-assurance. As the book progresses and as Paul grows older and has a family, Goldsworthy shows the reader that failing to take action at certain points in one’s life carried as many consequences as making the wrong choice does. Paul’s self-deception is one of the many out of a plethora of factors hindering his progression from a ‘good’ to a ‘great’ pianist. The difference between them is, “Not much. Little bits,” recites Keller who keenly observes and pushes the limits of Paul’s vanity since their first piano lesson. The contrast between the duo’s work ethic makes itself evident where Paul claims a piece of musical homework to be half-finished. Keller responds almost predictably, “Is water at fifty degrees half-boiling'” Yet Paul grows to love him, not because of Keller’s obvious work as a teacher, but because Keller will never give him satisfaction, praise or brief moment of respite. This is due to Paul being put on a pedestal and doted on by his loving parents, Nancy and John. Even they give up on Paul when he finishes 3rd place in Adelaide for a piano competition. Keller never gives up on Paul; it is interesting because the two grow to depend on each other. Paul, despite all of his regrets about not being a better student, remembers these events with fondness. He would not go back and change things if he could. Paul states at the end of the book that he would go through it all over again and still love it, “Endlessly. Effortlessly.” Perhaps the biggest excuse the narrator can make for the mistakes of his past is by presenting himself as brash, naïve and untamed. Paul does this a countless amount of times describing himself as, “High, happy, invulnerable.” Another such time is when recounting the night spent deciding his tertiary education. “When we begin to sense our childhood, we are no longer children. And decisions have been made – through neglect, omission, inertia – that cannot be unmade.” Paul is looking back on these events with a retrospective lens to show the reader the reasons of his youth arrogance. Sleeping with Megan Murray, the object of attention and facades, as well as neglecting Keller during their final consultation in Darwin are two big mistakes Paul attributes to his youth. Despite being warned of the dangers of beauty and appearances, Paul is ultimately seduced by the veneer of Megan and risks losing the substance in Rosie Zollo. Megan, the vital letdown was the manifestation of Keller’s warnings to, “Never trust the beautiful”. In his middle-aged and especially after the death of Keller, Paul is beginning to realise the mistakes of his past. Hence, this is the reason for the memoir. Paul is looking back fondly at the days where he was as great as he thought he was. His futile attempts to chase after the veneer of things only satisfied him for so long. Although he is nowhere near the musician that Keller ever was, Paul succeeds in one fundamental way that Keller did not. Family. Keller’s family was taken away from him because he trusted music to save them from the Nazis. Similarly, Paul’s self-deception and vain tendencies almost result in him losing Rosie, who serves as Paul’s moral compass and arguably as a replacement for the missing admiration of his parents. “If you’re not careful you’ll lose the only two groupies you’ve got.” After Keller’s death Paul describes himself as “Wanting to grieve. But not knowing how to.” This signifies the loss of one last hope at greatness that was Keller Through his neglect of Keller, Paul seeks to redeem himself for the foolishness of teenage years by attempting to let people know that, “A great man had died”. Paul’s ultimate realisation comes with the death of Keller. Just like how the murder of his family gave Keller his final realisation. These two events shaped student and teacher alike. The middle-aged Paul and the young Paul are fundamentally the same person. However, the one difference between the two is that Paul in his later years dwells on the past despite not wanting to change it. Furthermore he seeks to present himself to the reader as an unusually self-loving and narcissistic teenager who excludes himself from others due to a sense of superiority. The older Paul however becomes a shadow of Keller, left as on heritage to the world. He has experienced the same phase of self-deception, egoism and love of facades as well as going through similar losses. The fundamental difference is that Paul has a family. Therefore the student has surpassed his maestro.