Quantcast
Channel: The Truth About Lies
Viewing all 404 articles
Browse latest View live

Night Boat

$
0
0

Night_Boat

If you are interested in 'meeting the Buddha' and following his example, then you should realize that the path the Buddha taught is primarily a study of your own mind and a system for training your mind. This path is spiritual, not religious. Its goal is self-knowledge, not salvation; freedom, not heaven. And it is deeply personal. – Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche



There is a lot of meditation in this book. A lot. A lot of what most people, westerners certainly, would regard as doing nothing and thinking about nothing (mu) and that, I admit, on the surface of things does sound awfully boring and it would be if that was all Alan Spence’s new book was about. Thankfully, its subject, Hakuin Ekaku one of the most influential figures in Japanese Zen Buddhism, was not a big fan of "Do-nothing Zen" and from the very first page I found myself enchanted by the boy I encountered there. This happened, too, when I recently read The Last Banquet—I loved the child we met on page 1 eating beetles although wasn’t nearly as enamoured with the man as he grew up—but with Night Boat there was never a point where I went off the lad we’re first introduced to as Iwajiro who becomes the young monk Ekaku and ultimately the head priest Hakuin; although he gains experience and eventually attains enlightenment, he never loses that childish innocence. Perhaps if he had gone to a military academy instead of a Zen temple his story might have been very different.

Iwajiro of the Nagasawa family is eight when we’re initially introduced to him. He’s not eating beetles. He’s been taken by his father “to hear [a] monk deliver a sermon, on the Eight Burning Hells.” It is a defining moment in the young boy’s life:

[F]rom that day on, everything had changed. The fear was always there.

He finally admits his fears to his mother:

If hell is waiting for us, how can we not be afraid? And if there is no escape, what is the point of anything we do?

His brother is less sympathetic and pretends to be a demon: “You’re going to burn in hell . . .” he calls out to his brother that night “from behind the shoji screen [in a] thin and wavery … demon-voice.”

The next day his mother, once she can find the time for her son (an unexpected visitor takes up much of her day), introduces him to the TenjinSutra:

Tenjin is the deity of Kitano shrine, she said. In life he was Michizane, a scholar and poet, a great calligrapher. As a god he is Tenjin, with the power of fire and thunder. He can drive out angry ghosts and conquer the fear of hell.

[…]

All you have to do, said my mother, is chant the sutra, every morning when you wake and every night before you sleep. It is only a few lines long, a hundred Chinese characters, but it is very powerful.

To reinforce what she’s told her son she takes him to the Sanen-ji temple which was literally across the road from where they lived. There a young monk, a very different man to the one who’d scared him with tales of hellfire, underlined what his mother had already told him with one proviso:

[T]he best time to pray to [Tenjin] is the hour of the ox, between two and three in the morning.

Responding to the mother’s unease he qualifies this by suggesting that, bearing in mind his age, Iwajiro should simply meditate as early as he could, but this is where we see the boy’s mettle because he does begin to wake in the early hours to do as he’s been bid despite his father’s disapproval. For months he continues with his devotions encouraged by his mother. That his father would not be more supportive is a little strange—for a few years he trained for the priesthood—but at least he doesn’t try too hard to dampen his spirits.

Nichiren_Daishonin_Hakii_PortraitA puppet show some time later reinforces the boy’s burgeoning beliefs. It was the story of Nichiren or Nisshin-shonin. In 1427—so about two hundred years before Iwajiro was born—Nisshin wrote a book, Rissho Chikokuron, and sent it to the shogunAshikaga Yoshinori. The book was critical of the Ashikaga regime and, as a result, Nisshin was arrested, imprisoned and horribly tortured for two years. One of the tortures was placing a hot pot on his head, and since then he was called Nabe kamuri Nisshin, meaning “Nisshin with pot on his head". He copes with the torture by chanting a sutra similar to the one Iwajiro had been practicing. On his way home the boy announces to his mother that he intends to leave home and become a monk like Nisshin. His mother does not object: “Yes, she said. Yes. When it’s time.”

That time comes only a few years later when he reaches fourteen. He’s initially accepted into the Shoin-ji order—this was a Nichiren temple—but, after a few weeks, is transferred to Daisho-ji; the old high priest felt that living so close to home was perhaps not in the boy’s best interests. Whatever his reasons the new environment agrees with the young novice and he throws himself into his studies. The high priest at Daisho-ji is a plain speaker. When, for example, he learns where the boy, now going by Ekaku (which means ‘Wise Crane’), has come from he says of the high priest:

That old fart … He hasn’t had a thought in years. He should just write a death-verse and pack his bags and be done with it.

So it’s not surprising that when he’s finished his study of the Lotus Sutra—in honour of his mother, as the teachings of Nichiren had sustained her all her life— Ekaku tells the high priest that although the text contains “absolute jewels … they are hidden amongst so much dross, they are hard to find.” This direct, honest way of approaching Zen never leaves him and I can see why a Scot like Spence—we Scots do like to call a spade a spade—would be attracted to Hakuin as a character although we have many chapters to wade through before we see that name appear.

I chose the verb ‘wade’ not to suggest that the book is hard going because it’s not a hard read but then again it’s not a quick read. This is a man’s life here; you wouldn’t expect to flit through it in an afternoon. It took me about a week to read the 441 pages but I was in no rush to get to the end.

Of course by the end we’ve got what we pretty much expected—even if you know nothing about the subject before you start, the ending isn’t too hard to work out—but it’s not a disappointment that everything works out in the end, rather a vindication.

In his review of the book in The GuardianAllan Massie writes:

For all its merits and beauties, this is a novel which more readers may start than finish. Many indeed are likely to be deterred by the subject, but even those who embark on the voyage may find they are soon lost. Nor have the publishers helped them. I perforce read it in a proof copy which lacks a glossary for the many Japanese words; footnotes explaining such terms as “koan” and “kensho” and phrases like “Namu myoho renge kyo” would have been more welcome still. Perhaps this deficiency has been remedied in the finished copy. If not, it should have been.

I can see where he’s coming from and yet personally I didn’t find this an impediment to my enjoyment of the book. To be fair, some of the words are explained but Massie’s right, perhaps not enough for readers who know nothing about Zen Buddhism, not that I know much. I don’t think, for example, that the word ‘koan’ is ever defined but there are enough examples of koans throughout the book that it’s not hard to see what they’re all about and a whole chapter is devoted to Hakuin’s most famous koan—perhaps the world’s most famous koan—the sound of one hand clapping. I didn’t get it. I don’t need to get it. I got the idea of it. I think if there’d been footnotes, a glossary or an appendix this might’ve changed my experience of the book. I might have felt I was reading a textbook rather than a novel. If I wanted to study the teachings of Hakuin I’d dig out copies of his own books.

hakuin2Some people have no sense of smell. I have no sense of spirituality. You would think I would hate a book like this but I really didn’t. It was a story, a work of historical fiction. It was made up. Much of it is based on recorded fact but who knows what the man was really like, any more than we know what Jesus was like. The ‘story’ of the life of Jesus is a good read. You don’t have to believe any of it but as a story it works. And so does Spence’s presentation of the life of Hakuin. His struggle is not with some extant deity—that’s the thing about Buddhism, it’s as much a philosophy as a religion—but with himself. Most religions impel an individual to kowtow to the will of some higher being and although there are gods mentioned along the way in this book they don’t have the prominence one might expect mighty gods to have. The struggle here is with the self and even the most irreligious amongst us have that to struggle with on a daily basis. Here’s as good as example as any from the book:

I had gone into the market one day with one of the young monks, Taku. He had asked with great earnestness about the aphorism Your everyday mind is the way. He found it difficult to understand, and I thought down there among the sights and sounds and smells of the marketplace he might catch a glimpse.

We stopped at the stall to buy vegetables—I picked out a few radishes and leeks and the girl placed them in a sack Taku had brought with him. Everything on the stall was laid out just so, the fruits and vegetables piled high. Right in the centre was a basket of persimmons, perfect and ripe. I could smell their sweetness. I told Taku to choose one and he asked the girl which was best.

She bowed to him and smiled.

They are all the best, she said.

I laughed and slapped Taku on the back.

You see, Taku, I said. This young woman has a deep understanding of Zen.

Do you get it? I don’t get it but then I don’t need to get it. I’m content to stand at a distance and watch poor Taku go red with embarrassment.

What is particularly remarkable is Spence’s evocation of 17th and 18th century Japan. Had this been handed to me with the author’s name redacted there’s no way I would’ve credited this book to a westerner. Well, there were a couple of expressions that might’ve made me wonder but I’d have probably laid them at the door of the translator.

This book won’t be for everyone but don’t prejudge it either. Good writing is good writing. It really doesn’t matter what the subject matter is.

***

Spence, Alan 2Alan Spence is Professor in Creative Writing at the University of Aberdeen, where he is also artistic director of the annual WORD Festival. He was born in Glasgow in 1947, and much of his work is set in the city. He was recently commissioned by Scottish Opera for words for a libretto Zen Story, with music by Miriama Young. His first work was the collection of short stories Its Colours They Are Fine, published in 1977. This was followed by two plays, Sailmaker in 1982 and Space Invaders in 1983. The novel The Magic Flute appeared in 1990. In 1991 his play, Changed Days, was published before a brief hiatus. He returned in 1996 with Stone Garden, another collection of short stories. Since then he has published the novels Way To Go (1998) and The Pure Land (2006), a historical novel set in Japan based on the life of Thomas Blake Glover as immortalised in the story of Madame Butterfly.

His first poetry collection, Plop!, was published in 1970 and has since written several more collections, such as Glasgow Zen in 1981 and most recently Morning Glory (with illustrations by Elizabeth Blackadder) in 2010. He is considered to be the leading Scottish haiku writer, with collections including Seasons of the Heart and Clear Light.

He has won a Scottish Arts Council Book award three times, was the SAC Scottish Writer of the Year in 1995, and in 2006 won the Glenfiddich Spirit of Scotland (Writing) Award in 2006. Alan Spence now lives in Edinburgh with his wife, where they run the Sri Chinmoy Meditation Centre.


How long should it take to write a novel?

$
0
0

stop_watch

I don't give a damn what other people think. It's entirely their own business. I'm not writing for other people. – Harold Pinter, interview, Dec. 1971




I loved maths at school. I was in the top maths class and I should’ve got an A in my O-Level without batting an eye but I was cocky and rushed and ended up with a B which, to this day, embarrasses the hell out of me. I liked pure mathematics: If A=2 and B=3 then evaluate 2(A + B). 2 + 3 = 5 x 2 = 10. Lovely. And then came the problems: If it takes a man 13 minutes to run 5000m then how long will it take him to run 10000? Simple—26 minutes. Only that’s not the case. The world record for the 5000m is 12min 56.98sec whereas it’s 26min17.53sec for the 10000m because the guy who ran the second half of that 10000m race had already run 5000m and wasn’t fresh.

Here’s another one: If a guy writes a novel in ten days how long will it take him to finish five novels? Now this is a really tricky one. Many people have written a novel in a matter of a few weeks, even great novels:

Some of the greatest writers in literature wrote quickly—many of them in longhand. Alexandre Dumas, Jules Verne, and Charles Dickens were amazingly prolific, and their works have remained on bookshelves for more than a century and a half.  Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol, one of the best-loved novels of all time, in a feverish frenzy that lasted about six weeks.  William Faulkner wrote his classic As I Lay Dying in the same amount of time and claimed to have published his first draft “without changing a word.” – ‘The Mathematics of Productivity’, Kevin J. Anderson

Michael Moorcock used to churn out his early sword-and-sorcery action-adventure in about "three to ten days" each. And in his case—because he a) was well-prepared and b) worked to a formula—he could say, hand on heart, “I’ll give you five novels within the next two months” but let’s face it (and he would be the first to admit it) this would not be great literature. (You can read his method here.) I don’t know if Amanda Hocking read Moorcock’s guidelines but she certainly has his mindset:

Each book takes between two and four weeks to write, and she sells them for between 99¢ and $2.99. In the past 18 months, she has grossed approximately $2 million.

"I've seen other authors doing the exact same thing as I have, similar genres and similar prices," she told The New York Times, "and they're selling reasonably well, but they're not selling nearly as well as I am." –Nick Duerden, ‘Want to be a Kindle millionaire? Write novels about trolls’, The Independent, 16 November 2011

There are loads of articles out there. Here’s a wee video that tell you How to Write a Book in 14 Days in 2 minutes and 12 seconds:

Every years thousands set aside the month of November for NaNoWriMo (National Novel Writing Month) with the aim of writing a novel in thirty days. And many have. My wife has. I haven’t.

The numbers vary but there a lot of people out there regularly producing three, four, five or more novel-length manuscripts every year. Kevin J. Anderson, who I quote above, has published over 100 books over the last twenty years—about five a year on average. He doesn’t regard himself as exceptional—if you’re looking for the exceptions to the rule have a look at 20 Most Prolific Authors and Writers in Literary History—he’s just a jobbing writer. If he were a plumber and installed five bathroom suites in a year you’d wonder what he was doing with the rest of his time. Why is writing so different? It’s a craft after all, isn’t it? The same goes for Dean Wesley Smith:

I wrote my first published novel in 1986 and it came out in 1988 from Warner. But for the moment let’s forget about that one and just start from my second novel written and published in 1992 after I got done with Pulphouse.

That was 19 years ago!!!  (I didn’t need to think about that.) I have published 104 traditional novels now since 1992 (none indie published yet…all through New York companies). All of them were between 70,000 and 100,000 words.

That’s a 5.4 novels-per-year pace FOR NINETEEN YEARS. – Dean Wesley Smith, 'Four Novels A Year: The Math of It. Again.'

Ray Bradbury said "Quantity eventually equals quality." It’s open to misinterpretation. What he’s saying is that practice makes perfect. And that is true. But churning out formulaic novels one after the other will not make you a great writer. The Prousts of this world come along once in every generation.

I transcribed the following a wee while back:

KG: The book took a huge amount of work—seven years in the writing—and in that time, yes, I asked myself if I was completely mad.

SP: Do you ever sort of think to yourself: I could have spend six months and written a bestseller?

KG: [laughs] I wish!

SP: Is it not in… Is it not something you couldn’t…

KG: Just can’t do it. Either you’re going to write for entertainment (which has all kinds of wonderful things including a nice cheque at the end normally) or you’re an artist in which case you’re launching yourself on this extraordinary voyage into the unknown; we don’t know where we’re going to land; we don’t even know if we’re going to come home again. – Kirsty Gunn interviewed by Sue Perkins on The Culture Show: Edinburgh Festival, 22nd August 2012-09-12

The Big MusicKirsty Gunn has recently published The Big Music, not her first book—I counted another six on her website—she published her first in 1994 so that’s an average of one book every three years. Needless to say she has to do other stuff to make sure all her bills get paid (e.g. she’s Professor of Writing Practice and Study at the University of Dundee).

Who’re the real writers then, Anderson and Smith or Gunn? There will be people who will opt for the jobbing writers and there will be those who’ll say the literary novelist. And both have a case. Will Gunn’s The Big Music win the Man Booker Prize? Who knows? But I bet more people will have read any one of Anderson’s many Dune spin-offs.

On Karen Ranny’s blog I read this:

I just read an author’s comment about having written five books a year, and I’m absolutely stunned.  Not that she would write five books a year, but that she would admit it.

I’m prejudiced; I admit that.  Here’s my prejudice: Humans aren’t writing machines.  We’re people.  We need to recharge. Unless we’re writing the same scenes over and over, or the same plots over and over, the mind needs to have time to re-imagine; the spirit needs to renew. – Karen Ranny, ‘5 Books a Year? Are You Nuts?’

Julian Barnes has Flaubert say to us in his novel, Flaubert’s Parrot:

Books aren’t made in the way that babies are made: they are made like pyramids. There’s some long pondered plan, and then great blocks of stone are placed one on top of the other, and it’s back-breaking, sweaty time-consuming work. And all to no purpose! It just stands like that in the desert! But it towers over it prodigiously. Jackals piss at the base of it and bourgeois clamber to the top of it, etc.

My friend Lis Hanscombe included that quote in one of her articles and this is a part of my response (which is what started me thinking about all of this in the first place):

I watched a programme about waves recently. Not like me to save a science programme but the blurb in the TV paper intrigued me: waves are not made of water. Preposterous, of course. What else would they be made of? The answer's so blindingly obvious: energy. Waves are an illusion. Yes, the water moves but it never moves very far; it’s the energy that passes on to the next wave. So a wave is not an object, it is a process. And this raises a lot of interesting issues about what exactly an object is. It is energy frozen in time. And anything that can be frozen can be defrosted. A brick may not look as if it’s in a state of flux but it is. It will not stay a brick forever. And it’s the same with us. Humans are a process.

I don’t set out to write sonnets or sestinas. They’re not beyond me but I feel they’re artificial. And, of course, they are. There will be those who will argue that all art is artificial and they have a case. I do write novels or at least book length pieces of prose that most people would identify as a novel but I don’t plan my novels either. People divide writers into two categories—plotters and pantsers—and I identify more closely with pantsers than plotters but I don’t think about writing as flying by the seat of my pants. Or if it is it’s flying in slow motion. Writing for me is a natural process. I can begin with pretty much any line you throw at me. Some take me to more interesting places than others. If I get bored I stop and look for something else to write. I don’t understand those writers who when they’ve completed one novel jump straight into another—actually the best example I can think of is a Kathleen Jaimiefilmmaker, Woody Allen—but I do relate strongly to what Kathleen Jamie had to say in her article in The Guardian. She says,

It seems to me that if you know precisely what you've done, or are going to do, then it's a project. Projects are not art. Art proceeds without a map.

Each book I write—and every story, poem and play—is an exploration. It is a process and I agree completely with what Paul Valéry had to say about poems (although I would apply it to all fiction): “A poem is never finished, only abandoned.” I continue until I have seen enough—not necessarily everything there might be to see—and then stop. If I didn’t do that people … would not be able to take my words and look beyond them … and continue the process. As Samuel Johnson says, “A writer only begins a book. A reader finishes it.” We are not builders; we are architects.

[…]

Procrastination is another one of those terms—like writer’s block and inspiration—that people often get the wrong idea about. I think of procrastination as a wilful putting off of something, deliberately dragging ones feet. As Jamie writes:

[B]eginning a new work is not a matter of finding a topic to write ‘about’. First of all but you've to spend time – years! – frequenting the scrap yard or the sewing box, cobbling together a new self, then letting it find its way.

I feel guilty that I’m not writing a book now—what I am writing is poetry and that’s fine because at least I’m writing—but really it’s not guilt, it’s that word I invented (or discovered a need for) when writing [my fifth novel] Left, guilst—as angst is to anguish to guilst is to guilt—and I have nothing really to feel bad about because natural processes take their own sweet time.

Can you tell the difference between real pearls and artificial ones? I couldn’t. Is the difference worth all the extra effort involved?

In the same 1971 interview I quoted from at the start of this article Harold Pinter also said this:

I sometimes wish desperately that I could write like someone else, be someone else. No one particularly. Just if I could put the pen down on paper and suddenly come out in a totally different way.

I get that. I keep imagining that every other writer out there has it easier than me. When I read about how disciplined many writers are it depresses me no end. I finished my fifth novel almost two years ago and have yet to start a new book-length project. I wrote some 4000 a while back but felt that I was doing it for all the wrong reasons, so I could say to everyone that I was working on my sixth novel, but really that’s not the case. I’m nowhere at the moment. And so I related strongly to how Kathleen Jamie ended this interview:

No, this interview with you is the last thing I’m going to do around this book. I’ll draw a line under it and try and enter a place of emptiness again, out of which a new piece of work may or may not come in the next decade. – Rosemary Goring, 'Kathleen Jamie: The SRB Interview', Scottish Review of Books, Volume Eight, Issue Two

The InstructionsA decade! There’s something quite terrifying about something that might take ten years—an eighth of one’s life if one is strong—to complete. Just imagine devoting ten years to something and it’s a dud. It took Adam Levin nine years to write The Instructions working on average six hours a day, seven days a week whilst holding down a teaching post (he took one week’s vacation a year), during the middle of which his back gave out and so he had to write for two years standing up. Okay it is a big book but still, can you just imagine having lived with a host of characters for nine years and then find yourself faced with scrapping all of that and beginning afresh? In her article Kathleen Jamie puts it this way:

If the self that made the work is demobbed when the work is done, then it follows that to begin a new work—impossible thought!—you have first to construct a new self. That's the tricky bit.

A new self. Surely she’s exaggerating. A tweet from Linda Aragoni:

Finished writing a book yesterday. Had a burger to celebrate. Began writing next book.

That’s not me. And I’m not alone. Here’s part of an interview with Virginia Euwer Wolff:

Don Gallo: Most writers of books for teenagers publish a book every year, some even more frequently. You average more than three years between books—with Bat 6 coming five years after Make Lemonade. Why such a long time?

Virginia Euwer Wolff: I'm a very slow writer, and evidently I like it that way. I take a long time to think things through; I'm just not a speedy thinker. (Eight months to find a name for the narrator of Make Lemonade is a really, really long time. I knew one would come to me, and one did. Verna LaVaughn got two names, my attempt at recompense to her for having to wait so long.) I have to go through a lot of wrong drafts before the right one arrives.

YA has been flavour of the month for a while now and writers are just chucking books out hoping, I suppose, to be the next Hunger Games. And that’s fine if that’s why you write. The reasonable-prolific author John Scalzi talks on his site about George R.R. Martin though:

George Martin’s … novel, A Feast for Crows, came out in 2005, the same year as my novel Old Man’s War. Since OMW, I have written The Ghost Brigades, The Last Colony, Zoe’s Tale, Fuzzy Nation, and my upcoming 2012 novel (Agent to the Stars and The Android’s Dream were written prior to 2005). Martin’s written A Dance with Dragons. So I get credited with being reasonably prolific whilst Martin gets slammed by the more poorly socialized members of his fan base for slacking about.

[…]

Why did it take six years for A Dance With Dragons to come out? Because that’s how long it took.– John Scalzi, 'A Small Observation Regarding Words and Releases'

He opens this short article by saying, “I’ve noted before that comparing one author’s process andcareer with another’s is a situation fraught with difficulty (and often, some stupidity)…” and I have to agree with him because writing is not plumbing. I wish it was. You have no idea how much I wish that writing was just a craft that one could study, practice and pass exams to say that you’re a certified writer.

Times are a-changing. And we have those pesky ebooks to blame for that. Julie Bosman wrote an interesting article in The New York Times about just exactly how things are changing. She cites the author Lisa Scottoline as an example:

“It used to be that once a year was a big deal,” said Lisa Scottoline, a best-selling author of thrillers. “You could saturate the market. But today the culture is a great big hungry maw, and you have to feed it.”

[…]

Ms. Scottoline has increased her output from one book a year to two, which she accomplishes with a brutal writing schedule: 2,000 words a day, seven days a week, usually “starting at 9 a.m. and going until Colbert,” she said. – Julie Bosman, ‘Writer’s Cramp: In the E-Reader Era, a Book a Year Is Slacking’, The New York Times, 12 May 2012

Bosman does, however, add the following proviso:

(The new expectations do not apply to literary novelists like Jeffrey Eugenides and Jonathan Franzen, who can publish a new novel approximately every decade and still count on plenty of high-profile book reviews to promote it.)

So why does it take so long to write a literary novel? It’s not like they’re reinventing the wheel. Actually I think that’s exactly it. This quote is talking about Virginia Woolf:

The Voyage Out was begun during the summer of 1907 and submitted for publication in March 1913. No one knows exactly how many times it was rewritten. Virginia's husband, Leonard Woolf, recalled that 'she once opened a cupboard and found in it (and burnt) a whole mountain of MSS; it was The Voyage Out which she had rewritten (I think) five times from beginning to end'. But why did it take so long to write? For its author, everything seemed to hang on it. Virginia had always known that she would become a writer, perhaps even an important writer. [...] She had embarked upon it, her first novel had to justify her commitment, not just to others, but to herself. She was a perfectionist, and each new draft disappointed her high hopes and increased her fear of failing. – Julia Briggs, Virginia Woolf: An Inner Life, p.4

For several years prior to attempting this she’d been reading popular novels which she found predictable, both plots and characters. So she really was sitting down to write something new, not just a novel in name. Surely it’s only someone like Woolf who would do something like that. Oh, no. Here’s Kirsty Gunn talking about the “pibroch structure” of The Big Music:

Like Woolf, Gunn wanted to write something new. In an Edinburgh International Book festival podcast she said: “I think on the whole I’m kind of bored rigid by narrative lines and I certainly go rushing from the room when I hear that ghastly phrase ‘the narrative arc.’ Oh my lord, when you feel the cavalry riding over the hill that carries with it the entire plot, the back story and, yes, the inevitable conclusion. These kinds of thing make my blood run cold.” She says, going back to the video, “I often think—and I’m not alone in this—I think I have more in common with artists, with painters and sculptors that I do with writers. I often think I have more in common with musicians. This sense of… There’s a wonderful line by Rauschenberg where he talks about ‘the function of art is to remove the image from that other thing’.” I get that because when I read about these writers who churn out books I don’t feel any affinity; they’re something else, not me. I hasten to add here that I do not mean they are less than me although I’m sure there will be those snobs amongst the literati who think that they are. I admire them. But I’m not one of them.

Could I write 500 words of flash fiction on any given subject at the drop of a hat. Yes. I’m enough of a writer to be able to do that. And with a bit of reworking it might even be publishable. If you gave me a plot and asked me to fill in the blanks could I do it? Again, I’m sure I could. I’m fairly confident in my abilities. The real issue is why I write. I don’t write to sell books. There have been those who have asked about a third instalment to the ‘Truth’ novels and it’s perfectly doable. The second book ends on a cliff-hanger; everything set up and ready. But the thought of going back into that universe just makes me ache. I did a wee Q+A a while ago where the Jonathan and Truth were interviewed rather than me. Now that was fun, to put on those characters for an hour, but that was enough. And a sequel to Milligan and Murphy would be easy. But I never wrote any of those books to tell a story and that’s where the real distinction comes as far as I’m concerned. I’m not a storyteller. I use writing to work out problems. Like Pinter put it in an early essay:

I have usually begun a play in quite a simple manner; found a couple of characters in a particular context, thrown them together and listened to what they said, keeping my nose to the ground. – Harold Pinter, ‘The Echoing Silence’, The Guardian, 31 December 2008

That’s me. In Living with the Truth I have a bloke answer his door to find the personification of truth standing there. I had no idea what was going to happen but at the time of writing the book I was having to face up to some not entirely pleasant truths about myself and this was the way I ended up examining them without being all clichéd about it and writing autobiography.

How long should it take to write a novel? The answer—which we all knew all along—is: It depends. There is a need for entertainment and there is a need for art and all points in between. There is a reader for every book. If you’re lucky, more than one.

Isabel's Skin

$
0
0

isabels-skin

All changes, even the most longed for, have their melancholy; for what we leave behind us is a part of ourselves; we must die to one life before we can enter another. – Anatole France




This is an historical novel but it really doesn’t need to be and most of the time I was reading it I forgot when it was set. It was only when a horse and cart appeared rather than a car that I was reminded. This is not a criticism. It simply underlines the timeless quality of the work. Actually it’s quite typical of the kind of story that Hammer Films would’ve been interested in adapting in the sixties—perhaps as a follow-up to The Reptile—and if they’d only read half the book they’d have probably jumped at the chance to bid for it. Of course once they’d got their hands on it they’d have ripped out 90% of it, beefed up the horror angle and rewritten the ending probably lopping off the whole last section which would’ve been a crying shame because there’s actually something worthwhile going on here.

Alma Books describe Benson’s new novel as follows:

Peter Benson’s new novel is a slick Gothic tale in the English tradition, a murder mystery and a tour of Edwardian England. More than this, it is a work of atmosphere and unease which creates a world of inhuman anxiety and suspense.

It’s a fair description but also a little misleading; there, for example, is no mystery about the murder (there’s invariably a murder in a gothic novel) as we get to witness it. It does, however, borrow heavily from the popular tropes/motifs attached to Gothic fiction:

The setting is greatly influential in Gothic novels. It not only evokes the atmosphere of horror and dread, but also portrays the deterioration of its world. The decaying, ruined scenery implies that at one time there was a thriving world. At one time the abbey, castle, or landscape was something treasured and appreciated. Now, all that lasts is the decaying shell of a once thriving dwelling.

The Gothic hero becomes a sort of archetype as we find that there is a pattern to their characterization. There is always the protagonist, usually isolated either voluntarily or involuntarily. Then there is the villain, who is the epitome of evil, either by his (usually a man) own fall from grace, or by some implicit malevolence. The Wanderer, found in many Gothic tales, is the epitome of isolation as he wanders the earth in perpetual exile, usually a form of divine punishment.

The plot itself mirrors the ruined world in its dealings with a protagonist's fall from grace as she succumbs to temptation from a villain. In the end, the protagonist must be saved through a reunion with a loved one. – The Gothic Novel, David De Vore, Anne Domenic, Alexandra Kwan and Nicole Reidy, University of California

Benson’s hero, David Morris, isn’t quite as charismatic as your bog-standard Byronic hero—he’s really not the slightest bit charismatic…

I lived the life of an average bachelor, settled into what I thought was comfort, inured to the city, dreaming of something else but not sure what, lost in work and habits and the conventions that cloaked my work.

jk1…although Hammer would’ve probably (mis)cast Peter Wyngarde in the part—but he comes to realise through the course of the novel that he’s more flawed and conflicted than he might’ve admitted at the start and also discovers that he isn’t beyond acting in ways that could be considered morally questionable as long as it gets the job done.

The villain, Professor Richard Hunt, appears at first to be very much your run-of-the-mill mad scientist although we never do get to see his laboratory. This is how Morris describes him in part:

His hand was ice-cold, his skin was too smooth for a man of his age and his face had a sucked-in, skeletal look. His hair was dark and thin and combed carefully over the crown of his balding head. I guess he must have been sixty, but he could have been forty-five.

[…]

I assumed he was English, but an edge to his accent made me think he was German, maybe, or Austrian. His eyes were grey and cunning and looked straight into mine.

443px-Donald_Pleasence_Allan_Warren_editBaron Frankenstein isn’t a mad scientist in the book although he was completely off his trolley once Hammer had finished with him; Shelley makes her character more rounded and his mental instability more subtly portrayed. Hunt, like Frankenstein, is not a bad man but his obsession with forbidden knowledge has driven him over the edge or at least that’s how it seems because we never get to sit him down with a nice cup of tea and talk to him; it’s too late in the game for that. (Hammer would’ve been courting Donald Pleasence for the part I’m sure.)

The monster is every bit as articulate as Frankenstein’s creation and only driven to extreme actions by extreme circumstances. I can’t say any more about it without ruining the book. Some suspension of disbelief wouldn’t be out of place though.

Jane AsherThere is, too, the obligatory love interest (Jane Asher maybe?) but (thankfully) Benson’s women don’t spend all their time screaming and swooning even if they are a tad tamer than their twenty-first century counterparts. She is trapped, though, and it falls on Morris to rescue her and more than once. There’s also a housekeeper although she’s much more Mrs Hughes (Downton Abbey) than Mrs Danvers (Rebecca).

The setting of the Gothic Novel is a character in itself. The plot is usually set in a castle, an abbey, a monastery, or some other, usually religious edifice, and it is acknowledged that this building has secrets of its own. It is this gloomy and frightening scenery, which sets the scene for what the audience should expect. – Wikipedia

The old dark house, Belmont Hall, is nowhere near as dark and gloomy as it might’ve been despite the build-up it gets from the neighbours. An urchin Morris encounters on his way to Ashbrittle wants to know where he’s headed and when he’s told the lad doesn’t have much good to say about the place:

“Wouldn’t go there. Not like it is.”

“What do you mean?”

“There’s bad things there.”

“Bad things? What do you mean?”

He shook his head, looked at his black, calloused feet and hitched up his trousers. “Ma says there’s bad things in Ashbrittle. Crawling things. Evil, she says.”

“Evil? What sort of evil?”

“The screaming kind,” he says. “Ma says you can hear her in the night time. Sometimes in the day too.”

If it is a character in the novel it’s only a bit player. It’s certainly not alive (as in The Fall of the House of Usher) or menacing but it does provide a setting where we can look inside the hero’s head: the only scenes of importance in the building are in the library; Morris is a book-valuer and he’s there to appraise a collection of original editions by authors of the French Enlightenment and this is the one room in the house he should feel at home so in that respect it conforms with the gothic tradition of providing vital insight into the hero’s character. What’s interesting about The Fall of the House of Usher is that the house does double duty—it’s both setting and monster—and Benson pulls off a similar trick in his book but that’s all I’m saying on that score. Only a fraction of the novel takes place at Belmont Hall anyway and nothing major. The house in which he writes down his story is probably more important:

[T]his is my house at the edge of the marshes with its roof, floors and chairs, and there go a flock of geese, and this is my house too. It is like everyone’s other house, a place where secrets, promises, dreams and terrors are kept. Mine is like this.

It is not a lasting state, this house, but it changes every day. It holds things that never leave – the memory of the first time I saw her, the sound of her cries echoing in the night, the smell of her sweat, the feel of her – and it grows, twists and adds things to itself.

It could be mad or it could be angry, or it could double back on itself and become taller than the tallest building in a city you visited once and wish you could see again. It could be yellow and black and talk in a language only it understands. It could whisper about careless times, or flare like a candle and become the person you loved, someone who took your life and wrenched it away. Her name could chime, and when you are so lonely and you pull her image from an envelope and stare at it in the middle of the night you know she was the love of your life and you will never forget her. You can smell her skin, the skin that hurt so much, but then the smell passes. It has gone, and before you have a chance, you find yourself screaming in the night and wailing into the day.

horror of draculaThe storyline in a gothic novel is frequently presented by means of a series of secret manuscripts or multiple tales—Dracula is a good example—but that’s not the case here. Here we have one narrator looking back at these life-changing events from some time in the future but there are three stories: the main tale, the visit to Somerset, the encounter with the madman, the rescue of the girl (the consequences of which are dealt with when the action moves to London and subsequently Norfolk); the story of Morris’s friend Timothy who he met in Edinburgh whilst at university and who he runs into again briefly in London (wonder if Benson was looking to cast Timothy as the wanderer archetype?) and the story of Morris’s relationship with his father who happens to be a clergyman and so that covers that motif. The book features flashbacks heavily—essentially the whole novel is a flashback and so we have flashbacks within a flashback—and although they flesh out the character of Morris they also serve to disguise a rather thin main plotline which might bother some readers; me, I think plot’s overrated.

There’s no magic in the book—nothing supernatural at all—although there are a few dreams. It mixes elements of the classic gothic horror with historical romances, the psychological thriller and also the bildungsroman because our hero does a lot of growing up in these 269 pages.

The novel is prefaced by a quote:

We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed. – 1 Corinthians 15:51

It is a recurring theme throughout the book:

[W]hat are our lies and imaginings? Is one the lie of the idea that you can never change? The lie of a father’s religious truth? The lie of one man’s myths? And are the imaginings telling of a sweet and perfect love, one moored to a solid stone quay? One with sweet voices in the morning and the smell of woodsmoke drifting in still air?

There are a lot of questions in the book; more questions than I think I’ve ever read in a novel and most unanswered. The quote above comes from a whole page filled with questions. Inevitably Morris is changed by what happens to him and what he has to do. At the end of the book he writes:

I am different now, changed. I do not imagine I am clever, and I do not think I am pleased. When I remember things I have done and places I have known, I realize I was never true to them or true to myself. I spent too much time lost between what I thought made me happy and the ideas of happiness that were fed to me. But happiness only comes when you stop playing games and realize the only thing you have is your state of mind. This is all there is, nothing more.

I said this book was a gothic horror and a romance and a thriller but it’s also a literary novel. A lot of time is spent in introspection and this does slow down the action considerably as do the lengthy descriptions that Benson is famous for and, let’s give the man credit, damn good at; his descriptions of the house are nothing to write home about but once he gets into his element outside he comes into his own:

The moon was swollen, and its full light gave the land a flat, endless look. The wood was a rash across the side of the hill, and the tops of the trees gashed the skyline. The cats were prowling and ran from me as I crossed the drive and jumped the gate into the orchard, and then I was under the apple trees and past the chicken coop. The hens scratched and rustled their wings. A fox was near. I smelt it and as I turned my nose to the scent, I heard a howl.

I’m not a big fan of long (or even short) descriptive passages but I do like introspection and I suppose before everything else I’ve just mentioned this book is first and foremost a character study.

Structurally the novel’s a slow burner; it picks up towards the middle and we’re left to rake through the ashes at the end. It’s framed by a prologue and an epilogue and at first I thought there’d been a printing error because the epilogue reads so like the prologue:

Prologue: I wrote this story in a wooden house at the bottom of a thin garden. Turn your back on the sea, cross the lawn, walk past the bushes, the flower beds and the pond with the statue of a dog. Stop, take a deep breath and look.

Epilogue: I wrote this story in my low house at the bottom of a small garden. Turn your back on the marshes, cross the lawn, go past the trees and flowers, and the pond with the reeds and frogs.

This continues for a couple of pages. Of course they’re different but I found the technique quite compelling. You can read the entire prologue here. It really is interesting reading basically the same text a second time once you know what’s happened. Very clever. That said, I felt he said a little too much in the prologue and some of my assumptions proved right; I think I would’ve rather not had my head pointed in certain directions too soon.

rebeccaThe problem the novel has—although how much of a problem this will pose will depend on a) how well-read the reader is and b) how much they care about these things—is that it’s not one thing nor t’other: it’s not Frankenstein and it’s not Rebecca. Nor is it Jane Eyre (i.e. no madwoman in the attic) although I did think for a bit that it might head off in that direction. And it’s not Poe. I wouldn’t go as far as saying this is a pastiche—it rankled me when a reviewer referred to my novel Milligan and Murphy­ as a pasticheso I’m not going to do that to someone else, although a couple of other reviewers have. Benson tips his hat to everyone from Horace Walpole on but this book is very much his; the gothic is a skin that is shed by the end of the book and that’s only right and proper because this is a book about transformation. Love is what changes Morris but this is not the kind of love that one would expect had this novel been written at the time during which it’s set. I appreciated that. Love’s complex and too many novelists do it a disservice, attaching an on/off switch to it or making it some kind of panacea. Saving the girl shouldn’t guarantee getting the girl. I can say no more without spoiling the ending but if you’re looking for boy meets girl, saves girl, loses girl, saves girl properly this times and lives happily ever after with girl then think again. The literary device of the gothic novel was an interesting choice but it’s also a bit distracting and I know I wasn’t the only reader who went through ticking off the clichés as I read. On the whole I liked it though and actually think it might be a far better book than some reviewers have judged it; it just needs a second read wherein you’re not focusing on the plot.

This is the third book I’ve read by Peter Benson. I wasn’t crazy about Two Cows and a Vanful of Smoke but I could see he had something and so I volunteered to review The Levels when it was rereleased as an ebook; it was much better and so I was looking forward to Isabel’s Skin when I heard he had a new book coming out and would happily read him again.

There’s an interesting article on Benson in The Independenthere. Apparently he’s busy writing the third in what he calls his "loose Ashbrittle trilogy". Can’t really see the scope for a series but you never know with writers; I killed off my protagonist at the end of my first novel and still managed a sequel with him in it.

***

.Photo©Andrew Baker .07977074356.andrew.baker09@btinternet.com.andrewbakerphotographer.com.Born in 1956, Peter Benson was educated in Ramsgate, Canterbury and Exeter. His first novel, The Levels (which I reviewed here), won the Guardian Fiction Prize. This was followed by A Lesser Dependency, winner of the Encore award and The Other Occupant, which was awarded the Somerset Maugham Award. He has also published short stories, screenplays and poetry, some adapted for TV and radio and many translated into other languages. His latest work is a play co-authored with Alessandro Gallenzi, The Two Friends, a theatrical retelling of Gogol’s famous story of the two Ivans squabbling over a trifling insult.

The Novel Cure: An A to Z of Literary Remedies

$
0
0

The Novel Cure

Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint. –Mark Twain




The Novel Cure: An A to Z of Literary Remedies, to give it its full title in the UK—its full US title is The Novel Cure: From Abandonment to Zestlessness: 751 Books to Cure What Ails You—is an odd book. It has the look of an old-fashioned medical textbook. My father owned such a tome and it was one of the two books in the house I coveted following his death (the other was his annotated Bible) despite the fact that the art of self-misdiagnosis had moved on in leaps and bounds since then and we can now easily go online and convince ourselves we’re suffering from all kinds of life-threatening maladies but it is a book for which I hold a great sentimental attachment; if nothing else, it taught me the rudiments of sex. On the surface then that is indeed what The Novel Cure is, a medical textbook, although an odd one indeed because it extols the therapeutic benefits of reading books … well, novels (apparently short stories and nonfiction don’t do anyone any good) ... and almost completely ignores established treatments like cold compresses, hot chicken soup and daily doses of castor oil.

I’m not a hypochondriac (says he trying to keep a straight face) but I am a man and as such have suffered from the dreaded man flu on more than one occasion and the actual flu once. (And I thought man flu was bad!) For some unknown reason considering the epidemicity of the condition it was not one of the many ailments commented upon in my dad’s medical textbook and so what’s a man to do but suffer in silence? (Yeah, right.) If only at the time I had in my sweaty paws a copy of The Novel Cure: An A to Z of Literary Remedies because on page 262 of that very book the authors propose a remedy: massive doses of Victor Hugo! Specifically Les Misérables—both volumes—although not necessarily in the original French and only after “a great deal of sympathy … soft pillows … mugs of tea, hot water bottles, meals on trays, a TV with a remote control, and messages of support and commiseration from family and friends” has not proven up to the task in hand. Then it’s time for the big guns. The book goes on:

Our ‘cure’ – and this is one of the occasions in this book where we must use the term most loosely – is a two-volume edition of Victor Hugo’s classic novel of human torment and suffering, Les Misérables. Your patient might consider himself too ill for the application of a novel cure – and in fact urge you to turn to the entry in this book on dying. However, it is important to have a firm hand in administering it, despite les_miserables_bookhis resistance. We assure both you and he that within a few pages he will have lost himself completely in the woes of Jean Valjean and Fantine, Cosette and Monsieur Marius, Éponine and police inspector Javert, recognising his own suffering in theirs, and taking great comfort as a result.

[…]

Those responsible for nursing the victim, a round-the-clock job, will find him to be less talkative while taking the cure, thus giving everybody a chance to recover and delve more deeply within themselves to find unending supplies of love and sympathy. In the most effective cases, the cure might even enable the sufferer to forget about his symptoms completely, and bring about a return to good humour, vivacity and pleasure in life – even interest in others – which will seem quite miraculous when it occurs.

So, you get the idea. Once you strip away the veneer all this book is is a recommended reading list and as such open to debate. If you handed me a book of that length whilst in the throes of man flu the only thing stopping me hurling it straight back at you would be the wasted condition I would obviously be in. (You women have no idea!) Even once I was fighting fit I still wouldn’t thank you for it, me being the megabibliophobe that I am.

But what if I really was dying? What would The Novel Cure recommend then? Surely there’s no cure for death. Well, no, and the authors acknowledge this:

Death cannot be deferred forever, and when the time comes, we need to be ready. In the West we have a tendency to avoid thoughts of death, and to more or less obliterate the fact of death in our everyday lives. Gone are the days of the memento mori, a daily reminder that we must die. It is however, essential both to live in the presence of death – and be sure we are always fully alive – and to prepare ourselves with appropriate literary companions.

To that end they suggest Pearl by The Gawain Poet and Metamorphoses by Ovid which, okay, are poems but they’re damn long poems (fifteen volumes in Ovid’s case). Again I’m not sure if I was dying I’d could be jugged wasting what little time I had left wading through fifteen volumes of ancient Latin verse. Give me Death of a Superhero instead. Or Death: The High Cost of Living. Or Reaper Man. But what if it’s not you that’s dying? What if you have to cope with the death of a loved one? Well one book I would’ve expected to see would’ve been Shadow Child by P.F. Thomése but it gets excluded as it’s a memoir rather than fiction. Instead they have After You’d Gone by Maggie O’Farrell, Incendiary by Chris Cleave and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer, three 21st century takes on death. Since we’ve been popping our clogs since, like, forever I would’ve thought someone, somewhere along the line might have pretty much said everything that needed to be said about death long before now. Also since terminally ill people tend to want to cut to the chase what about the great poems on death like ‘Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night’?

No one is ever going to be able to create a 751-books-to-read-before-you-die-list that is going to suit everyone or even anyone if it comes to that. But there will be books that should be on everyone’s list especially if that list is 751 books long. And 751 books is not that long a list. I reckon I’ve got another thousand in me before I kick the bucket—easily—which is why it’s handy that The Guardian back in 2009 provided a list of 1000 novels everyone must read although only one of the books mentioned so far in this article (Les Misérables—but I’m still not reading it) made it onto their list.

So, what books would I say you should have on your list? These are some of the books that had a major impact on me. Billy Liar. Not mentioned. A Time of Changes. Not mentioned. One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. Not mentioned. That would definitely go in my ten best novels to read whilst in prison list. They have a few such lists: ten best novels for teenagers, ten best novels to cheer you up, ten best novels to read on the loo. Here’s one for me:

The TEN BEST NOVELLAS

To the WeddingJOHN BERGER
Breakfast at Tiffany’sTRUMAN CAPOTE
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?PHILIP K DICK
The Good SoldierFORD MADOX FORD
The Children’s BachHELEN GARNER
Train DreamsDENIS JOHNSON
An Imaginary LifeDAVID MALOUF
I was Amelia EarhartJANE MENDELSOHN
FlushVIRGINIA WOOLF
Chess StorySTEFAN ZWEIG

OfMiceAndMenOkay, a book 62,000 words long (which the Philip K Dick is) is not by any stretch of the imagination a novella. But even putting that aside for the moment there are so many other great novellas that I can think of that aren’t here. Of Mice and Men for one. That said the book does include Of Mice and Men under hope, loss of and I can see why it’s there. I thought perhaps they had a rule where a book could only get mentioned once but that’s not the case because The Great Gatsby is listed under cures for broke, being; the ten best audio books and the ten best novels for seeming well-read.

There are some glaring omissions like Everyman by Philip Roth which traces a man’s life by reference to his life’s illnesses leading up to his death and Too Loud a Solitude by Bohumil Hrabal which deals with the therapeutic affects books can have in a way no other novel—novella actually—does. There are also some obvious choices. What do you think the recommended reading is if you’re suffering from hunger? That would be Knut Hamsun’sHunger and yet if you have a problem with gambling surely you’d reach for the Dostoyevsky—and why wasn’t that in the novella list?—before Luke Rhinehart’sThe Dice Man, after all Dostoyevsky wrote the The Gambler to pay off gambling debts. And there are some peculiar sicknesses too like housewife, being a (and although maybe not great literature but surely Irma Bombeck was in with a shout there); coffee, can’t find a decent cup of; traffic warden, being a; missing your flight and DIY. DIY, of course, is not an ailment but as “[i]n the UK, six hundred people are injured every day in their own homes” due to fool heartedly thinking that hanging a shelf or assembling an IKEA bookcase is within their capabilities it is definitely a causal factor and prevention is better than cure. I’m also not sure that being foreign counts as an illness but the first book that I would reach for under those circumstances would be Stranger in a Strange Land and not Everything is Illuminated. Science Fiction authors are not ignored in the book and that’s good to see because there’s a lot of great literature out there hiding under often gaudy (or at least inappropriate) covers. There’s a nice entry in the book under sci-fi, fear of too as well as helpful advice on live instead of read, tendency to; skim, tendency to, non-reading partner, having a and tome, put off by a. (No, I’m still not going to read Les Mis.)

There was no entry for masturbation—but with entries for adultery; libido, loss of; coming too soon; orgasms, not enough; lust; sex, too little; sex, too much and seduction skills they probably reckoned they’d said enough on the subject but that also means that Portnoy’s Complaint is not one of their Top 751 reads although if they’d widened the scope a little and allowed in some nonfiction then Dick, A User’s Guidewould probably have been a better choice. (I’m being facetious.) Dementia was also missing and although they do have entries for aging, horror of; old age, horror of and senile, going I think I would’ve preferred to see it get its own entry even if no great fiction—none that jumps to mind—has been written on the subject. And who says we’re only allowed to read fiction? Keeperby Andrea Gillies is a great memoir, a real eye-opener on the subject. And that’s part of the authors’ problem here. Their goals are lofty—one might even say idealistic—but they are commendable:

The fact is, one simply cannot hope to read every book that exists. Or even every good book. If thinking about the size of the reading mountain out there sends you into a blind panic, breathe deep. Extreme selectivity is the only solution. Reading time is hard to come by, and you don’t want to waste any of it on even a mediocre book. Reach for excellence every time.

The Novel Cure is a good place to start when picking a more discerning path through the literary jungle. Consider also booking a consultation with a bibliotherapist, who will analyse your reading habits and yearnings as well as where you’re at in your personal and professional life, then create a reading list tailored especially for you.

The_Best_Punk_Album_In_The_World_Ever_album_coverBibliotherapy is a real thing by the way. When I first read this section I thought they had their tongues firmly in theircheeks but they’re deadly serious. Reading is therapeutic. At the very least it provides distraction; it takes our mind off ourselves. When we’ve just broken up with our boy or girlfriend what do we do? We slouch off home and listen to some mournful music—Leonard Cohen or the The Smiths on repeat or something—and let it wash over us and when we’re happy we stick on The Best Punk Album in the World … Ever!, roll up our sleeves and get stuck into the housework. If it works with music then why not books? Okay, the authors of this book present their case in a light-hearted and occasionally downright flippant manner but they do have a point and a good one. Their list has some gaping—dare I say ‘unforgiveable’?—holes in it but there’s also a lot of good stuff here.

Who the target demographic is is another matter. When I was nineteen I only read books by writers who’d won the Nobel Prize or, since I was also into science fiction at the time, a Hugo or Nebula award. That did me no harm whatsoever and I wish I’d kept at it because one of the things that I did realise as I flicked through the index at the back—not that I was ignorant of the fact—was how many great books I’ve never got round to. It’s frankly embarrassing. Personally I would give this book to a young bibliophile. My wife has a granddaughter who’s nearly seventeen and I’ll probably pass my copy onto her; her needs are greater than mine and she’s got more time than me, a good seventy years most likely. You can get a lotta reading done in seventy years.

There’s a handy website to go with book. You can find it here and it addresses some of my concerns with the book itself because it affords ‘patients’ the opportunity to submit their ‘ailments’ and receive a personal consultation. For example:

CAST ASIDE

Dear Ella and Suze I thought I was going to do something that would make a huge difference in the world but, heading towards 50, any impact I have had on anything has been pretty local rather than global and I feel I've missed the boat-of-greatness. Regards, Low Wattage

Dear Low Wattage, Don't underestimate the importance of the local impact you have made! Read The Mystic Masseur by VS Naipaul for an illustration of a man making a huge difference to the people in his immediate vicinity, which is just as important as the wider influence you have. But 50 is the new 30! You still have decades in which to blow your fuse and go out with a bang. Read Requiem for a Dream by Hubert Selby Junior to galvanise you into making your dreams a reality, not letting them slip through your fingers. Yours, Ella and Suse

We prescribe – The Mystic Masseur by VS Naipaul, Requiem for a Dream by Hubert Selby Junior

If you click on REMEDIESyou can read a number of excerpts from the book itself.

I like the idea of this book. It’s isn’t perfect—it never had a snowball’s chance in hell of being perfect—but as a template it works: ten out of ten for presentation. It aims to make people think about books differently: they’re not just for entertainment; they have real power. I have to agree. When I first picked up the book I thought there’d be excerpts from novels rather than reasons to read these novels but that works too. So the books—and the poems, the stories and the plays—that changed my life were mostly missing. So what. Not every piece of writing is going to have the same effect on everyone. I read Billy Liar when I was about thirteen or fourteen and it had a powerful effect on me even more so than Catcher in the Rye. And, actually, it’s a book I’ve never grown too old for. It was the right thing at the right time and it continues to be the right thing. It’s a wonderful thing when a book meets its ideal reader. For some people The Novel Cure will be one of those books.

***

2027Ella Berthoud and Susan Elderkin met as English Literature students at Cambridge University, where they began giving novels to each other whenever one of them seemed in need of a boost. Ella went on to study fine art and become a painter and art teacher. Susan became a novelist (Sunset Over Chocolate Mountains and The Voices, both Fourth Estate) and in 2003 was listed by Granta as one of the Twenty Best of Young British Novelists. She also teaches creative writing and writes travel pieces and book reviews for various newspapers. In 2008 they set up a bibliotherapy service through The School of Life in London, and since then have been prescribing books either virtually or in person to clients all over the world. Though they are now divided by an ocean (Ella lives in England and Susan lives in the States) they still regularly send each other fictional cures to keep them on the straight and narrow and ensure that they are living life to the full. The Novel Cure is their first book together.

The Quarry

$
0
0

The Quarry

I know Guy’s cancer is not contagious. You can’t catch it off him. That’s the thing about cancer. It’s all yours—it’s entirely, perfectly personalised. – Iain Banks,The Quarry






It’s said you shouldn’t speak ill of the dead and this admonition is most stringently enforced when it comes to the recently deceased as can be seen by the early reviews in the dailies of The Quarry, the late Iain Banks’s latest and last novel:

[A]n urgent novel and an important one – The Observer

This is vintage Banks, full of heart, black comedy and vitriol, and is sure to delight his fans – Sunday Mirror

The Quarry is very, very good – The Independent

When it comes to the dying, however, the dying can (and often do) speak ill—or at least their mind—of anyone they damn well please. In most cases those at the receiving end of such diatribes are close family members and medical staff. When you’re a famous novelist and you learn that the book you’re in the process of writing—have in fact almost finished writing—is going to be your last and unless your publisher gets their finger out is not one you’re likely to hold in your hand, you might have a few things to get off your chest. And Banks does. Not in the genial, gentlemanly tones we normally associate with Iain Banks when faced with an audience or a television camera but in the vociferous, foul-mouthed raging against the dying of the light of his last great creation: Guy Hyndersley.

Guy is not the book’s narrator, though; his son, Kit (short for Kitchener—seriously) is. He rarely swears. In fact if a DNA test hadn’t been carried out to confirm that Kit was his offspring you would be hard pressed to find any similarity between the two. The reason for the test?

[Guy] tells people he came back drunk from the pub that night and assumed the warm bundle inside the front porch was a takeaway meal delivery he’d forgotten ordering. He claims to have been quite peeved when he discovered it was actually a newborn baby.

Also there is some question regarding the identity of Kit’s mother:

Not knowing who your father is is not so unusual; not knowing who your mother is is just plain weird. Guy … has variously claimed that my mother is an emigrated-to-Australia ex-barmaid from a long-closed pub in Bewford; a married, middle-aged member of the aristocracy somewhere between one-hundred-and-fiftieth and two-hundredth in line to the throne; a disgraced Traveller girl now settled quietly in County Carlow (which is in Ireland); an American exchange student from the Midwest with hyper-strict parents, belonging to some bizarre religious cult; or possibly just some random girl/conquest he promptly forgot about even at the time, who literally abandoned me on his doorstep one evening.

Or it might be Hol, Pris or Ali. Along with Guy, Paul, Haze and Rob, the three girls formed the core of “Bewford Uni Film and Media Studies Faculty Ninety-Two Intake”, all of whom once lived together at Willoughtree House and have somehow remained friends ever since. Pris and Haze used to be a couple; Rob and Ali are currently a couple but it looks like Guy at least has known all three women, although he only had what might be called loosely ‘a relationship’ with Hol. Kit is probably closest to Hol. Whether any of them is a blood relation is neither here nor there: this is his family and like all the best literary families it’s as dysfunctional as hell but in a good way.

The events described in the book take place over a long weekend, what everyone expects will be the last weekend the group will spend together before Guy dies. So if anything was going to happen, if things that needed to be said were ever going to get said, this was when it has to happen. Maybe this is when Kit will finally learn the truth about his mother. Unlikely. The main thing that seems to be on the group’s collective mind is a certain video tape which everyone agrees were it to find its way into the public domain would be … “embarrassing” is their understated adjective of choice. Kit expects that it’s a sex tape but no one seems to want to confirm or deny that.

‘What is this tape you’re looking for?’ I ask her. ‘I might be able to help. I know the house better than Guy does now. I know where most stuff is stored.’

Holly stares at the suds in the sink, then lifts out one yellow-gloved hand and takes up her wineglass, drinking. ‘Just an old videotape,’ she tells me. Her voice sounds sleepy, the words slightly slurred. ‘Something kind of embarrassing on it.’ She shrugs. ‘If it’s even still around.’ She looks at me. ‘An S-VHS-C; old format. Thick as a VHS cassette but about, I don’t know, a quarter of the size. Small enough to fit into a hand-held camera of the day but you could play it … Well, you could play them straight from the camera, but if you’ve got this’ – Holly is waving one gloved hand around, distributing foam – ‘mechanical sort of gizmo the size and shape of a VHS tape, then … you inserted it into that and then put the whole shebang into your standard VHS video player under your telly and played it from that.’

VHS-S-VHS-S-VHS-C-comp-650

At first everyone just shrugs off the tape—if we find it we find it, if we don’t we don’t—but as the days wear on Kit starts to add two and two together, especially when more (albeit gentle) pressure is placed on him to locate the thing. Eventually all pretence at indifference vanishes, the house is divvied up and everyone sets out to try to locate said tape which does turn up, you’ll be pleased to hear, but when they do find it what’s on it is not what any of them anticipated and is probably even more … let’s just go with ‘damning’ … than what they expected to find.

The tape is, of course, a MacGuffin:

In TV interviews, Hitchcock defined a MacGuffin as the object around which the plot revolves, but as to what that object specifically is, he declared, "the audience don't care". [George] Lucas, on the other hand, believes that the MacGuffin should be powerful and that "the audience should care about it almost as much as the duelling heroes and villains on-screen". – Wikipedia

I’d have to go with Lucas here. The tape is not unimportant but it’s not what the book’s about. Remember the novel’s called The Quarry but it’s not really about the quarry either. The tape’s the quarry. Holtarth Moor Quarry is there in the background, it gets talked about—Kit, since Guy won’t survive that long, will have to move out of his house as the quarry expands—but it’s really just a metaphor for that which devours us over time. For Guy that is obviously his cancer but life has nibbled away at everyone in this book and continues to do so and it looks as if this weekend it’s preparing to take a big bite out of everyone. Inevitably Nietzsche gets referenced:

‘Yeah, but it’s true, isn’t it?’ Haze says, nodding slowly, eyes partially closed, staring into the middle distance, or at least whatever portion of it is available within the confines of the sitting room. ‘When you stare into the void, it, like, stares back at you.’

‘Does it, fuck,’ Guy snorts.

Haze looks at him, blinking rapidly.

[…]

‘Whoa, dude. I’m just saying what I felt,’ Haze says, through a small cloud of exhaled smoke. Ali, sitting nearby, waves it away with quick, sharp flaps of her hand.

‘No you’re fucking not,’ Guy tells him. ‘You’re just repeating a load of ego … drenched, self-regard-saturated, pseudo-mystical bollocks.’

Hol mutters something about ‘calling my homie Freddy N on one of his greater insights’, though she says it so quietly I think maybe only I hear it as Rob sighs and says,

‘Just give up now, Haze.’

‘Is that from Touching the Void, that climbing—’ Ali says, as Guy jabs one bony finger at Haze.

‘How does the fucking void stare back at you?’

‘I was just saying, I was looking into the quarry this morning—’ Haze begins.

‘How the fuck does the fucking void stare back at you?’ Guy demands, louder. He’s already complained about having a headache this evening and he’s taken more painkillers than he really should. Sometimes when he’s in a lot of pain he gets more angry and combative and, well, vicious. ‘Where are its eyes, where is its fucking nervous system, where is the brain that is receiving the results of this so-fucking-directed staring? Staring implies looking, looking implies – requires, fucking demands – something to stare with, something to interpret and consider and fucking philosophise about the results of this “staring”. How does any fucking absence of rock or other material cobble together the intellectual wherewithal to do anything as organised as fucking stare?’

‘I think,’ Paul says, ‘it’s generally regarded as being just a metaphor for the connection you feel when you gaze upon something … profound.’

newcastle_brown_ale_can‘Really?’ Guy sneers. ‘I think it’s an excuse for the intellectually challenged and … pretentious to make themselves feel important. Wow, man,’ Guy says, suddenly switching to a deeper, stoned-sounding, slightly posher voice and slowing down a fraction, ‘like, I’m so fucking the centre of the world I can’t stare into this crack in the ground without it showing me the respect of, like, staring back at me, like, you know? Cos I’m, like, as vacuous as it is, yah?’ He shakes his head, switches back to his normal voice as he says, ‘Jesus,’ and drinks from his can of Newcastle Brown.

Banks learned about his own cancer—inoperable cancer of the gallbladder—in March 2013. In an interview with Stuart Kelly only days before his death in June he says what he did next:

"On the morning of 4th March"—after he had been sent for a CT scan—"I thought everything was hunky dory except I had a sore back and my skin looked a bit funny. By the evening of the 4th I'd been told I had only a few months to live. By that time I'd written 90% of the novel; 87,000 words out of 97,000. Luckily, even though I'd done my words for the day, I'd taken a laptop into the hospital in Kirkcaldy, and once I'd been given the prognosis, I wrote the bit where Guy says, 'I shall not be disappointed to leave all you bastards behind.' It was an exaggeration of what I was feeling, but it was me thinking: 'How can I use this to positive effect?' Because I was feeling a bit kicked in the guts at this point. So I thought, 'OK, I'll just give Guy a good old rant.' Like I say; that's reality for you, it can get away with anything."

The thing is most of the rants in this book aren’t actually about cancer unless cancer is also a metaphor. In this book we get to look back on that peculiarly amorphous of things: ‘a generation’. Never been quite sure what ‘a generation’ means. My brother’s three years younger than I am and I don’t feel a part of his generation. When I was sixteen and he was thirteen there was a gulf but now I’m fifty-four and he’s fifty-one are we a part of the same generation? If so, when did that happen? Suffice to say Kit is the outsider here, the voyeur, our proxy and since he has “a reputation for obsessive-compulsive behaviour, Asperger’s and/or” he comes across as a rather dispassionate narrator. His only real passion is for the online game HeroSpace, a massively multiplayer online role-playing game probably something along the lines of the board game Heroscape. And he does have a bit of a soft spot for Hol, although ‘soft’ is not really the right word if you catch my drift and that could be problematic. He describes himself as on "a spectrum that stretches from 'highly gifted' at one end to 'nutter' at the other, both of which I am comfortable with." So, a fairly typical Banksian teenager then.

Banks, via this miscellany of characters, gets to say a lot about the legacy his own generation has left the world with and he does not mince his words. Politics inevitably crop up and this quote is as good a one as any:

Paul spreads both arms, looks round at everybody else, as though appealing to them. He even looks at me. ‘Holly,’ he says, when his gaze returns to her, ‘I don’t know what to say to you when you’re in this sort of mood. I don’t know how to handle you. Politics is politics and there are some decent people on the other side just like there are some twats on our side, and until you accept that you’re always going to sound like some Spartist caricature. Get a fucking grip, why don’t you.’

‘Can we talk about something else?’ Alison asks.

‘I’m not arguing there are no decent people in the Tory Party,’ Hol says to Paul. I think she’s trying to keep calm now. ‘But they’re like bits of sweetcorn in a turd; technically they’ve kept their integrity, but they’re still embedded in shit.’

‘There you go,’ Paul says, laughing lightly.

‘Yeah, come off the fence, Hol,’ Haze says. ‘Tell us what you really think!’

‘Things have changed, Hol,’ Rob tells her. ‘Phase-changed, even. We’re just not where we were.’

‘I’m being serious here,’ Alison says. ‘Can we talk about something else? I mean, does any of this really matter?’

Hol shakes her head. ‘What a choice: Neo-Labour, the toxic Agent-Orange-Book Lib-Dems or the shithead rich-boy bastardhood that is the Tories. We really are all fucked, aren’t we?’

‘Finally a note of realism,’ Paul says, shaking his head.

‘There’s always UKIP, Hol,’ Haze says.

Hol looks at Haze as though she’s about to say something, but then her face sort of screws up and she just makes a sound like ‘Tschah!’

For all that, this is an understated book. Seriously, not much happens apart from a lot of talking. A lot. Seriously. Lots. Pages and pages of conversations. The one-on-ones are okay, the rants are simply wonderful and must’ve been great fun to write, but once everyone’s in the one room drunk and/or high there’s no way you can keep track of who’s talking and Banks wisely—although I’m sure some creative writing teachers will frown at this—simply gives up on speech tags; it doesn’t matter who’s talking. Frankly most of the minor players are a bit two-dimensional anyway and deliberately so; none has maximised their full potential even the ones who’re more financially secure than others. Banks, himself, refers to the book as “a relatively minor piece,” and I’m not going to argue but a relatively minor piece by Banks will still wipe the floor with most other authors.

That said the book was rushed to print and would’ve benefitted from some tighter editing. In his review in The Independent Brian Morton notes:

Dennis PotterGiven the hasty completion of a book that Banks lived long enough to see in print, if not in public circulation, there are inevitable slips, or apparent slips. It was, for instance, Dennis Potter not Harold Pinter who dubbed his tumour “Rupert” (after the media proprietor), but then one wonders if this is a deliberate mistake and if Banks is steering us simultaneously to the realist/science-fiction split of Potter's own last works, and to the broken communications and stilled lives of Pinter's plays. It's a sign that we are dealing with a narrator who doesn't know everything after all and is most interesting when he doesn't.

The version I read, however, says quite clearly:

‘Come on,’ Hol tells him. ‘Come to the pub, if you’re up to it; won’t be the same without you.’

‘I’m up to it, Rupert isn’t,’ he says, though he is now pulling on his knitted hat, which might be a positive sign. Guy calls his cancer ‘Rupert’, an idea he says he got from the dead playwright Dennis Potter.

I could find no reference to any ‘Harold’ so maybe it was an ARC Morton got hold of. That said I did get more lost than I would’ve liked during some of the lengthier—not that there are many short—exchanges. Occasionally we change scene and there’s nothing, not even a space to let us know this is a new section; that was also a bit sloppy, although I’ve just read a Roth where he does exactly the same but I didn’t like it there either. Perhaps if they reprint it—can’t imagine them not reprinting it (not sure any of Banks’s books are out of print)—they could tweak it then.

Iain BanksIf you’ve never read Banks before I’m not sure this would be the best place to start off. The tabloids may have been mostly forgiving but Joe Public hasn’t been as you’ll see from the one-star reviews on Amazon and some by long-time fans. He can, and has, done better. Mostly he’s done different. Different isn’t necessarily better. I was reminded of Ian McEwan when I read this. McEwan’s done a lot of growing up since his first two scandalous short story collections and Banks is also not the same man who wrote The Crow Road and The Wasp Factory. He’s matured. The Quarry is a grown-up novel. He might not have gone out on a bang but he certainly doesn’t go out on a whimper either. Just a damn shame he had to go at all.

Internet addiction and you

$
0
0

intravenious mouse

It’s doubtful that anyone with an internet connection at his workplace is writing good fiction. – Jonathan Franzen



Self control is something most of us struggle with from time to time. I’m struggling with it right now. The groceries got delivered today and Carrie had ordered two meringues as a treat. She decided she wanted hers right after lunch and so, as I can’t see green cheese, I had mine. The thing is I’m not (oddly enough—see below) that big of a fan of meringues—with the exception of some mint ones my mum used to buy back in the nineteen-sixties—and I wasn’t that hungry, having just had my sandwich, but if she was having one I was going to have one too, which I did and didn’t really enjoy. Now it’s nearly three o’clock and about the time I would have a fresh cup of coffee and a couple of biscuits, which I want and will go and get as soon as I’ve finished this paragraph, but I don’t really need them.

(Three minutes and two (I really wanted three) Lotus caramelised biscuits later…)

Okay I can think now. And I’m trying to think of an excuse to go back into the kitchen to get that third biscuit. (If you’ve ever tried them you’ll appreciate how incredibly moreish they are.) I admit it. I have an addictive personality. I discovered that when I hit puberty. I’ve always been a collector and enjoy seeing (but especially owning) sets of things. I’ve never developed a drink or drug habit though. I never got hooked on cigarettes but since I didn’t inhale (I never realised you were supposed to) I guess that explains that. I do have a sweet tooth and I’m frankly amazed that I’m not built like the side of a house now considering all the junk we Scots consume.

Then again maybe I don’t have an addictive personality. Maybe I’m just a greedy bugger.

When I think of an addiction I think about someone who has passed control of their happiness onto a third party. I use the term ‘happiness’ loosely and make no apologies for reminding everyone of this absolutely wonderful quote from Brave New World:

Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the overcompensation for misery. And of course stability isn’t nearly so spectacular as instability. And being contented has none of the glamour of a good fight against misfortune, none of the picturesqueness of a struggle with temptation, or a fatal overthrow by passion or doubt. Happiness is never grand.

Not being unhappy is not the same as being happy: happiness is not a toggle. A drug addict will indeed be miserable if he or she is in need of a fix but are they genuinely happy once the drug begins coursing through their veins?

ugly-americans-on-the-boatOne of my guilty pleasures is Ugly Americans, an animated cartoon set in an America where demons and freaks are all a part of everyday life. In this particular episode (Season 2 Episode 7, ‘Wail Street’) Randall (Mark’s zombie roommate) tries to put Mark's oversized soul up for sale. Lots of people apparently have been selling their souls and replacing them with NuvaSoul™ , an artificial soul that’s almost as good as the real thing if you don’t mind the diarrhoea. And that’s all fine and well in a cartoon even if it is being satirical. And then today I learned that you could replace your self-control with SelfControl, well, at least if you run a Mac. From the website:

SelfControl is an OS X application which blocks access to incoming and/or outgoing mail servers and websites for a predetermined period of time.

For example, you could block access to your email, Facebook, and twitter for 90 minutes, but still have access to the rest of the web. Once started, it cannot be undone by the application, by deleting the application, or by restarting the computer – you must wait for the timer to run out.

It’s a simple enough concept. I suppose it would be like me putting locks on the cookie jar and the biscuit drawer (and I would probably need locks on the tin with the chocolate bars in it and one on the fridge where I keep the Maltesers to keep them cold). You see it’s never just the one thing is it? It used to be just phone calls and then it was e-mails and then it was text messaging, Facebook and RSS feeds and now it’s tweets and Pinterest and Christ knows what’s coming next to steal a wee bit of your happiness away from you. Read me! Look at me! Click on me! Poke me! Like me! Think of something witty and write me a comment. Retweet me! Retweet me now!

  1. Addictive behaviour is maladaptiveor counter-productive to the individual. Instead of helping a person adapt to situations or overcome problems, it tends to undermine these abilities.
  2. The behaviour is persistent. When someone is addicted, they will continue to engage in the addictive behaviour, despite it causing them trouble.

If you have a bad habit this is an addiction. There are worse things to be addicted to than biting your fingernails (which I have never done although I did use to bite the edge of my index finger on my left hand when I was a kid) but that’s what it is. The Internet is something all of us use habitually. It is my habit to get up in the morning, perform my ablutions, eat my breakfast whilst watching BBC Breakfastand then I pick up my tablet, check my e-mails, my news feeds and Facebook messages in that order—this is a weeding process rather than a reading one—before moving to my laptop where I check my other e-mail where I have forwarded things I actually intend to action. That’s not an addiction; that’s a routine. At lunchtime I do the same and again in the evening. Other than that I virtually never open Facebook or Feedreader during my workday although I do tend to leave my e-mail open, but only because I don’t get very many e-mails to my laptop.

Apparently Nick Hornby, Dave Eggers and Zadie Smith are among a growing group of novelists who struggle with Internet addiction. Whether they’ve been formally diagnosed with IAD I don’t know. IAD stands for Internet addiction disorder which some claim is a real thing. Although it’s not to be found in DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition) it will now be included in the appendix in the upcoming revision of the DSM-V.

It’s official, at least according to researchers at Norway’s University of Bergen: Facebook is addictive.
This may not come as a terrific surprise when you stop to think that the site claims some 500 million users on a daily basis.

But what is surprising is the researchers’ conclusion that Facebook addiction produces symptoms similar to those observed in substance and alcohol addiction. Some studies have found that heavy internet use has actually led to a “rewiring” of the brain with striking similarity to drug and alcohol addicts. – Studies find Internet Addiction Disorder exists!, Centre for Internet Addiction, 18 July 2012

Whether it’s an addiction proper or a symptom of another existing disorder I’m not going to try to argue. What I can say is that any time anyone feels that they’re not in complete control of their lives then something isn’t right. IAD comes in a variety of flavours apparently:

  • Cybersex Addiction– compulsive use of Internet pornography, adult chat rooms, or adult fantasy role-play sites impacting negatively on real-life intimate relationships.
  • Cyber-Relationship Addiction– addiction to social networking, chat rooms, and messaging to the point where virtual, online friends become more important than real-life relationships with family and friends.
  • Net Compulsions– such as compulsive online gaming, gambling, stock trading, or compulsive use of online auction sites such as eBay, often resulting in financial and job-related problems. 
  • Information Overload– compulsive web surfing or database searching, leading to lower work productivity and less social interaction with family and friends.
  • Computer Addiction– obsessive playing of off-line computer games, such as Solitaire or Minesweeper, or obsessive computer programming.

In a recent article in The Telegraph entitled ‘Shutting out a world of digital distraction’Carl Wilkinson writes:

NWTucked away in the acknowledgements at the back of her new novel NW, along with the names of friends, family, editors and publishers who have helped her, Zadie Smith thanks freedom and self-control “for creating the time”.

Every writer needs the freedom to be creative and the self-control to stick with a project until completion, but Smith has something rather more 21st century in mind: Freedom [which works with both PCs and Macs] and SelfControl are computer applications that can be downloaded and configured to increase productivity by blocking access to the internet.

Just like SelfControl, Freedom works by disabling your Internet connections for the time period you specify. When you run Freedom, you’re not able to get online. Freedom makes no permanent changes to your computer. If you need to get back online, just reboot.

Ned Beauman goes even further than Smith:

There are five layers of technological solutions I use. I edit my host file to block some websites, but that’s too coarse grain. I use K9, which is a parental control application, to block certain pages within websites, and I use an ad-blocker, not to block adverts, but to block the comment sections of many sites. And when I’m working I use Nanny for Google Chrome and SelfControl to block certain websites.

It’s all to do with importance. Let me tell you what I hate: the BBC News Channel. I don’t hate it all the time but I do hate it at 11:30 on a Saturday morning which is when my wife and I generally sit down to watch their technology programme Click except when there is some breaking news and we either get the truncated fifteen minute version or the whole thing is cancelled. And not once let me tell you has there ever been any news that critical that I have to watch it as soon as it has happened. There was one day when poor ol’ Nick Robinson was hanging around outside No. 10 Downing Street trying to grab a word with a load of politicians as they were going in for a meeting. What could they possiblyhave to say beforethe meeting? And I had to miss my Click whilst all that was going on. Could it not have waited thirty minutes? I honestly can’t see people writing into Points of View outraged because the Beeb neglected to cover that momentous non-event.

And it’s the same with e-mails and tweets and all that crap: none of it is so desperately important that it could not wait an hour or two. You’re not missing out on anything. I belong to a writers’ group on Facebook and I keep seeing these exchanges going on and I wonder to myself: How the hell do they get any writing done? Yes, it’s important that we show face every now and then but it’s not that important. It’s a matter of weighing up the return on your investment. Time is valuable.

In the comments thread to the Guardian article M. K. Hajdin has this to say:

Accusing someone of being "addicted to the internet" is like accusing them of "being addicted to family and friends".

Anything that provides any kind of stimulation whatsoever can become "addictive" or distracting.

The internet's a tool.  Like any tool, it has no moral value of its own, and depends entirely on the person who uses it.

She makes a fair comment. I can only work in the living room along with my wife because she’s so quiet. If she nattered away to me all day long I’d pack up and relocate to my office. If the bird gets too squawky he gets shifted to a shelf in the bathroom until he’s got whatever’s bothering him out of his system.

TCF-OriginalWhen I came online all those years ago I cannot pretend that I wasn’t distracted. Everything was fascinating and you simply could not get me off my PC. I was the same with colour TV when it arrived although I can’t say that I’ve been as impressed by Hi Def. But back in 1967 we’d just sit and stare at the test card. It took a while but I now think of the Internet as something very ordinary. I know it’s not—it’s incredible when you think about it—but that’s what happens with all technology. I like that I can get answers immediately. It changes how I write. When I wrote my first two novels there was no Internet and research involved trips to the library. I could go back to that but I’d rather not.

So what are the signs of IAD? Dr. Kimberly Young has likened Internet addiction to addictive syndromes similar to impulse-control disorders on the Axis I Scale of the DSM:

  1. Do you feel preoccupied with the Internet (think about previous online activity or anticipate next online session)?
  2. Do you feel the need to use the Internet with increasing amounts of time in order to achieve satisfaction?
  3. Have you repeatedly made unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back, or stop Internet use?
  4. Do you feel restless, moody, depressed, or irritable when attempting to cut down or stop Internet use?
  5. Do you stay online longer than originally intended?
  6. Have you jeopardized or risked the loss of significant relationship, job, educational or career opportunity because of the Internet?
  7. Have you lied to family members, therapist, or others to conceal the extent of involvement with the Internet?
  8. Do you use the Internet as a way of escaping from problems or of relieving a dysphoric mood (e.g., feelings of helplessness, guilt, anxiety, depression)?

Meeting five of the above symptoms were considered necessary to be diagnosed. There is a test of Internet addiction that you can take online over at netaddiction.com which is where I copied that table from. My score was 27. That means, according to the site:

You are an average on-line user. You may surf the Web a bit too long at times, but you have control over your usage.

You see that’s the thing, the Internet is a great tool and my life does revolve around it, but I don’t depend on it for happiness. It can and does make me happy—when I get an e-mail telling me a poem or a story has been accepted for publication I’m happy—but I’d be just as happy if they sent me a letter or phoned me up. I think if I were more of a social person and relied on interactions with people to make me happy I might have more of a problem. My best friends I interact with maybe once or twice a week. They have online presences but they don’t hang out online if I can draw the distinction. Anyone who doesn’t take advantage of the Internet in this day and age is an idiot. New technology needs to be embraced. That said I don’t own a Smartphone and barely use the mobile I do have. I watch Click every week but frankly I wonder about the lifestyles of the people who would use most of the apps they promote. The Internet hasn’t really changed me; I’ve cherry picked.

If I’m addicted to anything it’s writing. The longer I go without writing the unhappier I am. The thing is I don’t think about my need to write as any different to my need to eat, sleep or breathe. For me writing is a natural thing. I can barely go a minute without breathing but to suggest I’m addicted to air is preposterous. I can go for days on end without writing. And yet you should see Carrie and me if we lose our Internet connection for more than a few minutes. I have got so used to looking things up there and then that I get very frustrated when the option is taken away from me but I see no difference here to being able to make a cup of hot coffee whenever I want if only as an excuse to have a couple more of those scrummy biscuits. I’m used to that but I’m not addicted to it. Electricity is a part of my life as is the Internet. I don’t go through withdrawal symptoms without coffee—I’ve been drinking decaffeinated for years—but it is an inconvenience because the scrummy biscuits taste better with a cup of coffee. And that’s all the Internet is, a convenience. When I first gave up driving—I’ve not owned a car for over fifteen years—it was a pain because I’d got used to zipping here and vrooming there; I left everything to the last minute and crammed my life to bursting point. The relief I felt simply not being able to do that was incredible. So if something happened—some alien virus, I don’t know, use your imaginations—and the World Wide Web disappeared overnight I’d cope a helluva lot easier than most. I have the addresses of my best friends and we’d just start writing the old-fashioned way. Personally I miss letters. I’m a practical person so I don’t send them but I do miss them.

There has been some recent talk about scientists finding an “internet-addiction gene”. Apparently it’s CHRNA4 in case you wondered.

Genes_0Recent studies from Asia provided first evidence for a molecular genetic link between serotonergic and dopaminergic neurotransmission and Internet addiction. The present report offers data on a new candidate gene in the investigation of Internet addiction-the gene coding for the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor subunit alpha 4 (CHRNA4). A case-control study was carried out. The participants were recruited from a large gene data bank, including people from the general population and from a university setting. A total of 132 participants with problematic Internet use and 132 age- and sex-matched controls participated in the study. Participants provided DNA samples and filled in the Internet Addiction Test Questionnaire. The T- variant (CC genotype) of the rs1044396 polymorphism on the CHRNA4 gene occurred significantly more frequently in the case group. Further analyses revealed that this effect was driven by females. Combined with the findings from other studies, the present data point in the direction that rs1044396 exerts pleiotropic effects on a vast range of behaviours, including cognition, emotion, and addiction. – C. Montag, P. Kirsch, C Sauer, S Markett, M Reuter, ‘The Role of the CHRNA4 Gene in Internet Addiction: A Case-control Study’, US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, September 2012

It makes good press—the first sentence does anyway (I was lost after that)—but as Robert Wright pointed out in his article in The Atlantic in response to this report:

[T]he internet, like a pack of cigarettes or lots of cocaine, lets you just sit in a room and repeatedly trigger reward chemicals that, back in the environment of our evolution, you could trigger only with more work and only less frequently. That's why an internet habit, like a cocaine habit, can reach dysfunctional levels.

[All these] forms of internet dependence—porn, Facebook, TMZ [a new one on me], Twitter, YouTube—are just a few of the possible ingredients of any one case of internet "addiction." And each of these ingredients itself involves God-knows-which neurotransmitters and neuronal receptors and, by extension, God-knows-how-many genes. And all of us have lots and lots of these genes—genes that make us susceptible to internet addiction. Because what the internet does is take lots of things that natural selection designed us to find gratifying and make them much easier to get.

[…]

These genes are really just genes for being human. That's why using the internet well is a challenge for us all.

I have never gambled. I don’t see the point to it. I just don’t get it. I don’t get how one man can be sexually attracted toward another man. I don’t get that either. I don’t get how anyone can spend hours every day on Facebook. I don’t get opera or rap. Or deep-fried Mars Bars. Or paying more than five quid for a bottle of wine. Everyone is different. I do get hope and I suspect that’s one of the things that writers become addicted to and the Internet facilitates. Every time we open an e-mail we hope there’s going to be good news. Every time we open Google Analytics we hope our stats are going to be up. Every time we log into Smashwords or Amazon we hope people are going to have bought our book. Every time we post a blog or write a comment we hope that that one person is going to read it. We hope every day we’re going to be discovered. Hope is a hard thing to give up on or even to cut back on.

Aimee Mann said, “In the '70s, everybody thought drugs were just good times. People didn't really know about drug addiction, or that such a thing existed. When I grew up in the '70s I thought you had to take drugs. It was almost like I didn't think you had a choice.” You might think there’s a world of difference between taking drugs and using the Internet but there is one thing they both have in common: you have no idea what it’s like for anyone else. I look at the activity of some people and I am amazed. Where do they find the time or the energy? But they’re doing it so I need to try to keep up. That’s how most of my mates started smoking. All the cool kids were doing it and so soon everyone else was.

The Internet itself is not a fad or a fashion—it’s bigger than that—but a lot of the things it enables you to do are. The first step along the line to recovery from any form of addiction is acknowledging there’s a problem. It depends on who you are after that in how you cope with it. For me the best thing my wife ever bought me was that tablet. I wasn’t addicted but I was burdened. Now if I want to check in I need to physically get off my backside and go get the tablet and that’s all it took. I’ve recommended this to others too. Computers are relatively cheap. Have a writing machine and an all-other-things machine. Do something though.

The Skinning Tree

$
0
0

154_large

School days, school days
Dear old Golden Rule days
'Reading and 'riting and 'rithmetic
Taught to the tune of the hick'ry stick

— Will Cobb and Gus Edwards




I don’t like blurbs. I understand why we have them but don’t ask me to like them. I hate writing them. They never do a book justice and often provide a decidedly skewed picture. The danger there is that once the reader picks up the book he or she will be disappointed with what the author offers because no matter how good it is it’s not what the blurb led you to expect. Teasing’s not nice. Quite often I don’t read blurbs at all. But in this case I did and here it is:

A child, who lives in his imagination at his grandmother’s house in Calcutta, is unable to cope with the real world when he is sent to a boarding school in northern India and finds himself involved in a tragedy. Set against the Japanese advance on India during World War II, Sabby, aged nine, lives in a family where anglicised sophistication of bridge and dinner parties co-exists with Indian values and nationalism. In a regime of rules and punishments the schoolboys are beaten and brutalized by the teachers and the boys are transformed into mirrors of their abusers. From the mindless killing of birds and animals, the bodies of their skinned trophies are thrown on to a cactus known as the Skinning Tree, the boys’ thoughts turn to murder, which is to them feels like no more than a natural consequence of the pain inflicted on them. Conspiratorial whisperings and talk of killing and revenge spiral into a tragedy engulfing Sabby. The Skinning Tree marks an extraordinarily evocative and haunting debut. – Tibor Jones and Associates website

So what do you think? The cover’s no help. I expected something dark. Not quite Lord of the Flies. Maybe an Indian version of If…, perhaps, although with kukris (Gurkhas’ knives) instead of automatic weapons. The expression “beaten and brutalized” is an emotive one. I grew up at a time where it was commonplace for kids to get the strap—I received it twice at school (the first time when I was about Sabby’s age)—but I didn’t consider myself brutalised: I’d been deemed disobedient; I was punished; end of story. I didn’t take out my spite on defenceless animals or make plans to do away with my teachers. Like all kids I’m sure I’ve pulled the legs off a daddy-long-legs or two in my time without really appreciating how cruel I was being but that phase passed quickly enough. So I was expecting something much harsher here and probably very unpleasant. But d’you know what? It takes a hundred pages for Sabby just to reach the school and then another hundred before things come to a head. That leaves us with fifty pages and the fact is this book could easily be stripped down to a tight novella. It all depends on where you think a story ought to start. How much exposition is really necessary?

8573_lord-of-the-flies-02What’s Lord of the Flies about? Is it about Ralph or is it about the boys? It’s about both—it’s about Ralph’s experiences while with these boys—but it’s primarily Ralph’s story. We meet a decent English schoolboy and we watch him try to hang onto that sense of decency despite extraordinary external pressures. And that’s what we have here, albeit to a lesser extent. Someone dies, yes, but the book is not about her death any more than Lord of the Flies is about Piggy’s murder. Yes, both are key scenes, life changing in fact (Piggy’s was the first fictional death that I can say honestly affected me), but they need to be kept in perspective.

I can’t lay the blame for my expectations solely on the blurb. This is the opening paragraph to the novel:

Murder was the plaything of us kids. We fooled with the idea of killing like some kids fool with fire. We stood around in free time on the far side of the pitch, leaning against the wall or sitting on it, kicking our boot heels against it, talking – talking about killing, killing someone, someone we didn’t like, how we would do it: killing was easy, no one would tell on you, because they wouldn’t. Talking and bragging. Then one day it happened. Sister Man was found on the rocks below the school.

The skinning tree doesn’t make its appearance until page 193 (of 250); the Lord of the Flies is set on her stick on page 247 of 349; both are symbols but they are also distractions and their importance shouldn’t be overemphasised. By the age of about seven most kids have an understanding of death—they know dead people don’t come back and they realise eventually everyone dies—but even when a loved one passes—as Sabby’s grandmother does in the book—often they still don’t really get death which is why most kids go through a phase of pulling the legs off daddy-long-legs or, as in the case in the book, the heads off flies. Some don’t. And if the Japanese had remained on their side of the border Sabby would’ve stayed in Calcutta and probably never hurt any living thing. And we would’ve still had an enjoyable semi-autobiographical novel not unlike Ismail Kadare’sChronicle in Stone.

Whereas in Lord of the Flies the story begins on the island and we don’t learn an awful lot about the lives of the kids beforehand, Srikumar Sen devotes the first section of his book to a vivid and detailed description of what life was like in Calcutta during the 1940s, what life was like for him in the 1940s because this clearly draws heavily on personal experiences and that’s fine but after a few pages I wondered when the book I’d felt I’d been promised on the back cover was going to start. It’s not that Sabby’s not an interesting boy because he is and as portraits of nine-year-olds go it’s an excellent one, especially since it was written by a man in his late seventies (he was eighty-one when the book, Sen’s first novel, was published).

Sabby lives in England, Calcutta. England is not of course in Calcutta but ‘England’ is a term Sabby has come to associate with his worldview. He has no idea that England is a country:

[T]here were no countries in his world and his heroes did not come from any country, not even India. They were just there in his grandmother’s house. […] Like [all] children, he lived in a make-believe world of adventure. He didn’t know how or where [other children] acted out their tales and myths, but his were played out in a land called England. India was in England, and India and England were in Cal. And Cal was within the spiked walls and the big iron gates that enclosed his grandmother’s two houses… The world of Surojit Sabby (Sabjee) Sarkar was in England, Cal, 10 Park Road. He didn’t know where he got that name, England, from. He must have read it somewhere or heard about it somewhere, or someone told him about it, or perhaps it was because in reality he was living in England all the time, Cal being an English town somewhere in the mythical country of England. Indians were there, of course, but they did not matter. They didn’t even exist if he did not want them to.

He’s a baby. Despite being nine years old he’s still a baby. He’s called one and acts like one. He’s never been out his front yard on his own. He’s been cossetted all his life. Can you imagine what the transition to a boarding school hundreds of miles away is going to be like for him? Not that he truly appreciates what is awaiting him when he’s told that, for his safety as the Japanese are threatening Calcutta, he’s to be sent away. The only thing that’s on his mind is getting to see Zora Ka Beta [Son of Zorro] at the local fleapit. (I do not use the word euphemistically; the place is infested.)

The next few weeks pass by normally for him. Apart from a shopping trip to get him kitted out for his new school nothing much is said. His parents get on with their lives and he gets on with his. The school is too far off to think about just as the war is too far off for most Indians to think about:

His family, like most politically minded Indians didn’t talk about the war. It wasn’t their war.

But the day finally creeps up on him and he has to leave by train accompanied by a family friend, Mrs Collins, and her two sons who are travelling to the next station along from where Sabby has to alight. The wrench from his family’s bosom is traumatic:

The guard’s whistle was heard above the noise of the station. The train did not move. Was the whistle for this train or another one? Everyone looked towards the rear of the train. A green flag was being waved. The train groaned. Sabby started to squeeze through the horizontal bars of the window in front of him.

“Baby! Baby! Don’t!” his mother screamed.

His father moved closer to the carriage.

“Now Sabjee, now listen, Sabjee, go back in,” he said, reaching up and stroking his arm.

Mrs Collins moved closer to Sabby, stood beside him and held him.

[…]

“Remember, darling, in three weeks, three weeks only…” his mother shouted.

Those three weeks become a life raft for Sabby to cling to. Especially once he sees the place. He believes all he has to do is sit tight for three weeks and then his parents will come, he can tell them how bad it is and they’ll rescue him. Only something happens and they can’t come and it’s going to be months before he gets to see them again.

The thing is the school isn’t that bad. Rather than crumple, Sabby copes; he adapts. Yes, the Brothers who run things—of whom we learn very little—are strict; yes, corporal punishment is the norm, but once he’s made a couple of friends Tom Brown's School DaysSabby settles in far quicker than one would ever have imagined. Okay he’s got to deal with a bully—bullies can always sniff out weaklings like Sabby—but even as far as bullies go he doesn’t have that hard a time; Jonsing is no Flashman. Besides it doesn’t take too long before Sabby gets the strap (which is nowhere near as bad as he imagined in would be) and his receiving it goes a long way toward making him one of the boys. And the boys are just boys. They play with catapults, swear and break whatever rules they can without getting caught because that’s what kids do. One boy who’s especially skilled with his catapult starts talking more and more about what he can kill and it’s him that draws the kids into their secret circle of killing.

There’s been a fair bit of debate over the years about how exposure to violence desensitises us and I’m not saying it’s not a factor here but I think what motivates the kids to start mistreating animals is more of a desire to curry favour with the cool kid. Childhood is full of rites of passage like this: If you want to join our gang you’ve got to do x, y or z unpleasant thing. Initiation rites are a part of growing up and they continue into adulthood. Hazing is common in fraternities and sororities, bikers (reputedly) have to bite the head off a live chicken to join a Hell’s Angels gang and others go through more formalised initiations into organisations like the Freemasons.

Considering the amount of time spent on Sabby’s life in Calcutta the whole killing animals thing is skimmed over. I know the book was cut substantially prior to submission but more time really needed to be spent on the transformation of Sabby. It gets covered in a couple of pages and that’s really not enough. That said, it has nothing to do with the death of Sister Man. That is an accident. Certainly, it’s an accident that could easily have been avoided and the reason it’s not is that the kids are so afraid of being caught breaking the rules that when they’re faced with the moral dilemma: Should I break a rule for a good reason? they err on the side of caution. They don’t think things through. Granted, they don’t have more than a few seconds to make this decision, but each boy takes it and looks to save himself. So what we have here is an example of negative reinforcement that’s gone too far. When Pavlov’s dogs heard the bell they salivated; when these kids hear the bell they run like the clappers because they know what happens to anyone not in his place when the bell stops. I’m reminded on the lines from Dead Poets Society:

KEATING

I always thought the idea of educating was to learn to think for yourself.

MR. NOLAN

At these boys’ ages? Not on your life! Tradition, John. Discipline. Prepare them for college, and the rest will take care of itself.

Sen has a nice, unhurried writing style. He spends a long time on descriptions which, normally, I would hate but he does such a bang up job that I really didn’t mind his taking a hundred pages to say what he could have summarised in two or three. It was the fact that after setting the pace he then bolts towards the finish line: Sabby becomes one of the boys, they indulge in a bit of animal cruelty, they leave a nun to her fate and the next thing you know the school term’s over and Sabby has talked his parents into not sending him back. Why the rush? While it’s true that after Piggy’s death in Lord of the Flies and Neil’s death in Dead Poets Society things do get wrapped up fairly quickly, this felt especially hurried.

The bulk of the story is told in the third person but it is bookended by two short chapters where we hear a grownup Sabby offer his perspective. I think maybe too much is said here, especially in the opening section, because he draws conclusions before we get a chance to hear the evidence and, although he has good points to make, I think they would’ve been better held onto until afterwards or maybe left out completely. Such didacticism is unnecessary when a book is well-written which this one is. We’re adults; we can think for ourselves; we get the point; you don’t need to spell it out for us.

The book’s full of Indian terminology. There is a glossary but there’s a lot missing. Like “m’n”. This gets tagged onto the end of just about every sentence the boys utter and Sabby adopts it but what does it mean? It’s never explained in the book, it’s not in the glossary and you try looking up “m’n” in Google. I would’ve preferred footnotes, personally. There were a fair number of words I didn’t fully understand: Bhishti, charpoy, kachori, dhoti, paan. Some I guessed. Some I looked up. Some didn’t affect the story and so I didn’t bother. The Bhishtis find Sister Man’s body. It’s the only time they’re mentioned and it really doesn’t matter. She was found. End of story.

You can read an excerpt from the book here. A brief interview with the author can also be found here.

I’ll leave you with the book trailer.

***

Srikumar_SenSrikumar Sen was born in Calcutta. He moved to England in 1946 when his parents, who were journalists, were transferred to London. He continued his education in a London school and Oxford University, after which he joined the Times as a trainee. He married Eileen Hartwell, from South Africa, in 1955 and they went out to India, where he worked on the Statesman in Calcutta and then joined ICI (India) as head of the public relations department. They returned to England in 1965. He worked on the Guardian sports desk for a year before moving to the Times sports desk, where he remained for thirty years, becoming the Boxing Correspondent, a post he held for the last thirteen years of his service with the newspaper. He has three children, two boys and a girl.

Sen is the joint-winner of the Tibor Jones South Asia Prize 2011 with The Skinning Tree. He is currently working on a second novel which will deal with Sabby’s experiences of life in the UK.

The Cavafy Variations

$
0
0

The Cavafy Variations

Poetry is what gets lost in translation. – Robert Frost



Recently I was asked to review The Cavafy Variations by Ian Parks for Elsewhere. As I knew nothing of Cavafy I decided to do my customary research and soon realised that there was no way I could do the thing justice in only five hundred words. This monster of a post it what I ended up with—basically it’s my working notes and quotes all tidied up and typed up and yet I only feel like I’ve scratched the surface. Phillipson’s C.P. Cavafy Historical Poems took him twenty-five years to write. This was the best I could do in a week.

***

Translation is a bugger; Auden says as much in his introduction to The Complete Poems of Cavafy where he waxes lyrical on all the things that are either lost completely—or much diluted—when one attempts to translate a poem from one language to another and yet he notes:

I have read translations of Cavafy made by many different hands, but every one of them was immediately recognizable as a poem by Cavafy; nobody else could possibly have written it. […] What is it then that survives translation and excites?

[…]

Reading any poem of his, I feel: “This reveals a person with a unique perspective on the world.” That the speech of self-disclosure should be translatable seems to me very odd, but I am convinced that it is. The conclusion I draw is that the only quality which all human beings without exception possess is uniqueness: any characteristic, on the other hand, which one individual can be recognized as having in common with another, like red hair or the English language, implies the existence of other individual qualities which this classification excludes.

One would have thought that the above could be said of a great many writers: Kafka, Beckett, Brautigan, Bukowski; pick up a book by any one of them and within a few lines you know precisely who you’re reading. So what’s so special about Cavafy?

On the surface nothing much. In fact to the casual observer he could well come across as a decidedly ordinary poet, even a bad poet. Much of his subject matter is obscure unless you have a particular interest in ancient Greece; he sidesteps most common poetic techniques—you’ll be hard pressed to find a simile or a metaphor in any of his poems, particularly the later ones—and yet he clearly has his admirers. One of these was the Nobel laureate Giorgos Seferis who, during a 1946 lecture at Athens, had this to say about Cavafy’s life:

“Cavafy stands at the boundary where poetry strips herself in order to become prose,” he remarked, although not without admiration. “He is the most anti-poetic (or a-poetic) poet I know.”[1]

Daniel Mendelsohn’s article on Cavafy for The New York Times is entitled: ‘As Good as Great Poetry Gets’ and in his article for The New Yorker, ‘Man with a Past’, Dan Chiasson refers to Cavafy as “the greatest Greek poet since antiquity;”[2] high praise indeed. There’s a problem though: A.E. Stallings notes, in her essay for the Poetry Foundation, ‘More Cavafy’, that “Cavafy is without doubt the most translated and retranslated of modern Greek poets—perhaps among the most translated of foreign poets into English period”—but despite what Auden says it appears that some translators do Cavafy a disservice. To illustrate Stallings quotes from a comment made by Reginald Shepherd in an article by Rigoberto González, ‘In Praise of Cavafy’:

All the translations I’ve read make Cavafy sound like prose broken into lines—well-written, sensitive, insightful prose, but prose nonetheless. Reading the introductions to the translations and other work about Cavafy, I understand that Cavafy was an obsessive poetic craftsman, obsessively revising and refining each line. I also understand that much of the verbal power of his poems comes from his mingling of the refined and stilted Greek called Katharevusa, inherited from the Byzantines, which was the standard literary language of his time, with Demotic, vernacular, spoken Greek, which was not considered acceptable for literature. None of this comes across in any of the translations I have read. This absence, combined with the relative paucity of figurative language—as I recall, Cavafy has vivid imagery, but few metaphors and similes—contributes to the prosaic feel of his poetry in the translations I’ve read.

So, chopped-up prose or great poetry? And although oft quoted just because Auden said what he said does that make it true? I can find no evidence that Auden could read Greek so how qualified was he to say what was a good or a bad translation? Dan Chiasson on the other hand concluded that "Cavafy survives translation relatively unscathed” although he qualifies this remark by adding, that “should not imply that he has survived all translations equally intact.”[3] And from all accounts he can read Greek.

E.M. Forster, who got to know him in his fifties and his first champion in the west, famously described Cavafy as “a Greek gentleman in a straw hat, standing absolutely motionless at a slight angle to the universe.”[4] Giorgos Seferis said that “outside his poems Cavafy does not exist.”[5] Who then was C.P. Cavafy?

CavafyConstantine Petrou Photiades Cavafy (as he wanted the family name to be spelled in English) was born in Alexandria, Egypt on 29 April 1863 to Greek parents; he lived most of his life there and died there exactly seventy years later. Both parents were natives of Constantinople (now Istanbul) and Cavafy was proud of his heritage; he regarded Constantinople as his spiritual home although he actually only spent a relatively short period of time living in the city. The Cavafy family flourished in Alexandria both financially and socially but two years after the death of Cavafy’s father in 1870 they were forced to move to England to stay with his uncles living between Liverpool and London; Constantine would have been nine years old at the time of the move. Naturally he attended school in England and consequentially, it’s been reported, spoke Greek with a slight English inflection for the rest of his life. During this time he became acquainted with more British poetry than he might have had he remained in Egypt or moved to Greece and this clearly affected his early verse writing; of the Victoria poets Browning especially helped him develop his technique of dramatic monologue although he also owes a debt of thanks to two French poetic movements, Parnassianism and Symbolism as well as the Decadent and Aesthetic movements.

When Cavafy was fourteen they returned home where he finished high school and, with the exception of a three-year sojourn to Constantinople from 1882 to 1885 following the British bombardment of Alexandria, Cavafy would never live anywhere else, although he did take holidays in Greece and it was to Greece that he travelled in 1932 in order undergo a tracheotomy for cancer of the throat. It was, however, during that initial extended stay in Greece that his passion with history was kindled—at the age of fifteen he began compiling an historical dictionary—and that fire never went out. In fact in later years he described himself as “not a poet only” but a “poet-historian”.[6] The term ‘historian’ needs to be viewed in a wider context than one might normally think of the word; everything that has passed has passed into history; we are the machines of history. Greece was also important for the young Cavafy because it was there from all accounts he had his first homosexual experiences.

For most of his life Cavafy worked mornings as a “permanently temporary minor colonial civil servant”,[7] to quote G.P. Savidis, in the wonderfully-named Third Circle of Irrigation (very Dante-cum-Kafkaesque); in the afternoons he played the stock market—not unsuccessfully—and in the evenings he indulged his sexual proclivities once he had done keeping his overbearing mother company. Following the death of their mothers he lived with two of his brothers until they left—one moved to Cairo, the other went travelling and simply never returned—and so from 1908 until his death in 1933 he lived alone in a fusty flat above a brothel in one of the Oscar-Wildecity’s poorer quarters. He was a famously private man—one of his friends described him as “almost pathologically timid”[8]—and yet his poetry became increasingly homoerotic as time went by and this at a time when people were, let’s just say, nowhere near as accepting or even as tolerant as they are nowadays; not the way to keep under the radar. Only in 1895 Oscar Wilde had been sentenced to two years’ hard labour, the poem 'Two Loves' by Lord Alfred Douglas, being cited by the prosecution, and if anything it was Wilde’s response to the prosecution’s question, “What is ‘the love that dare not speak its name’?” that probably sealed his fate. Perhaps it’s just as well that Cavafy didn’t remain in Britain. That said:

Before 1914, in his city and particularly within his class, there prevailed an imitation of Victorian morality―of the most narrow-minded, anti-aesthetic kind. In such an atmosphere, a scandal such as that of Oscar Wilde could easily have been repeated. Cavafy ran the risk of seeing his relatives’ homes closed to him, of being ostracized, of no longer being greeted on the street, or even―and I have in mind specific facts―being banished from the city he loved. And yet he dared.[9]

And he nearly came a cropper too in 1924. At the time he circulated a poem entitled ‘Before Time Altered Them’ which opens:

They were full of sadness at their parting.
That wasn’t what they themselves wanted: it was circumstances.
The need to earn a living forced one of them
to go far away—New York or Canada.

[Edmund Keeley/Philip Sherrard]

In Cavafy’s original Greek, the initial upsilon of Iorki [Νέα Υόρκη, New York] is marked with a smooth breathing, as it should be. A journalist subsequently noted that Cavafy’s orthography differed from that of fellow-journalist and physician Socrates Lagoudakis, who seems to have spelled Iorki with a rough breathing. Or perhaps the journalist reported Cavafy’s mockery of Lagoudakis’s substandard English—accounts vary. All parties agree that Lagoudakis took offense and began to devote several of the signature character profiles that he regularly disseminated in the press to Cavafy, whom he apparently denounced as “another Wilde.” Though there were rumours of an impending lawsuit, the poet did not respond.[10]

Greeks feel passionate about many things but grammar appears to rank near the top of the list. Luckily it all blew over.

Homoerotic, although technically accurate, is really not the right word though. Just because Cavafy writes about sex doesn’t mean his work is erotic in the same way you might think of the writings of Anaïs Nin. He doesn’t apologise but neither does he stand on a soapbox. “[I]n his whole lifetime he never gave out one of his ‘dangerous’ poems more than once to the general public and to periodicals.”[11] He learned to live with himself but not perhaps to love himself.

Cavafy started publishing poems and articles in Greek following his second return to Alexandria. His first published text was an article entitled ‘Coral, from a Mythological Viewpoint’ in the newspaper Constantinople on 3 January 1886 but he never found much success; his early poetry was mediocre. In fact it wasn’t until his late-forties that he found his voice. Cavafy is reported to have called himself, late in life, a “poet of old age”[12], comparing himself with Anatole France who “wrote his colossal work after the age of forty-five.”[13] It was at this time he performed what he called a “Philosophical Scrutiny” of his writing. Basically everything in his life came to a head:

This unsparing (if, typically, not unforgiving) self-examination was the portal to the poet’s mature period, one in which the tripartite division that he had once used to categorize his work—into “philosophical” (by which he meant provocative of reflection), “historical,” and “sensual” poems[14]—began to disintegrate. The enriched and newly confident sense of himself as a Greek and as a man of letters that resulted from the intellectual crisis of the 1890s seems to have resulted in some kind of reconciliation with his homosexual nature, too. (The death of his mother might, in its own way, have been liberating in this respect.)

[I]t is no accident that Cavafy himself dated this period to the year 1911—the year in which he published ‘Dangerous [Thoughts],’ the first of his poems that situated homoerotic content in an ancient setting.[15]

Of course a term like ‘sensual’ is a broad one. For example, Cavafy classified ‘In Church’ as a sensual poem because he’s focusing on the sensory experiences whilst being in a church:

In Church

I love the church—its liturgical fans,
the silver of the vessels, its candlesticks,
the lights, the icons, the pulpit.

When I enter there, in a church of the Greeks,
with its fragrances of incense,
amid the liturgical voices and harmonies,
the majestic presence of the priests
and the stately rhythm of their every move—
most resplendent in the finery of their vestments—
my mind travels to the great glories of our race,
to our illustrious Byzantine past.

[Evangelos Sachperoglou]

Unlike France, Cavafy’s output could not be described as colossal. He often revised poems over years—“he never wrote a single poem uninterruptedly from beginning to end”[16]—and only left one hundred and fifty-four completed poems at the time of his death, the so-called canon. Indeed he repudiated—his word—most of the poems written prior to this although he did try to salvage as many as he could:

My method of procedure for this Philosophical Scrutiny may be either by taking the poems one by one and settling them at once—following the lists and ticking each on the list as it is finished, or effacing it if vowed to destruction: or by considering them first attentively, reporting on them, making a batch of the reports, and afterwards working on them on the basis and in the sequence of the batch: that is the method of procedure of the Emendatory Work…[17]

Cavafy writes about the liminal and the peripheral whether in geographical terms or temporal. Although he’s mostly writing in the present tense the past is continually present and in the past the present is waiting. “To me,” he writes in 1906, “the immediate impression is never a starting point for work. The impression has got to falsify itself with time, without my having to falsify it.”[18] And in 1902: “Do Truth and Falsehood really exist? Or, is there only New and Old—and the False is simply the old age of Truth?”[19]

People are often in a state of transition within his poems and this is nowhere better expressed than in his perhaps best-known work, ‘Candles’—an old poem from 1893, one of the twenty-four which survived the cull—in which into the future stretches a line of lit candles; behind us is a similar line of extinguished candles; a simple, yet elegant metaphor. In later years he said that the poem was “one of the best things I ever wrote”[20] and added:

What a deceitful thing Art can be, when you want to apply sincerity. You sit down and write—often speculatively—about emotions, and then, over time, you doubt yourself. I wrote ‘Candles,’ ‘The Souls of Old Men’ and ‘An Old Man’ about old age. Advancing towards old (or middle) age, I discovered that this last poem of mine does not contain a correct evaluation. ‘The Souls of Old Men’ I still think correct; but when I reach seventy years I might find it wanting too. ‘Candles’ I hope is safe.[21]

Cavafy Candles

Manuscript of the poem ‘Candles’

This is clearly a poem one would classify as philosophical but the distinctions are not always as clear. One should not assume that a piece set in the past cannot also deal with philosophical issues (e.g. ‘Nero’s Deadline’) or sensual (‘The God Abandons Antony’).

All of Cavafy’s poems have either a personal or historical source. In an illuminating article, ‘Cavafy's Technique of Inspiration’, Kōnstantinos Dēmaras discusses what he sees as Cavafy’s method: “[I]t is the reconstruction, often voluntary, of real or imaginary scenes from the poet’s personal life or from history.” He seems far more interested in remembering than in experiencing, reliving rather than living:

I’ve Brought to Art

I sit in a mood of reverie.
I brought to Art desires and sensations:
things half-glimpsed,
faces or lines, certain indistinct memories
of unfulfilled love affairs. Let me submit to Art:
Art knows how to shape forms of Beauty,
almost imperceptibly completing life,
blending impressions, blending day with day.

[Edmund Keeley/Philip Sherrard]

Often these memories are reimagined and set in the distant past of the distant city of Alexandria, the place where he came to embrace his true nature:

Delight of flesh between
those half opened clothes:
quick baring of flesh―the vision of it
that has crossed twenty-six years
and comes to rest now in this poetry.

[from ‘Comes to Rest’ | Edmund Keeley/Philip Sherrard]

[A]s the home of his “life’s memories,” Alexandria soon became the primary source for poem after poem that invoked, through memory, the more or less secret erotic experience of his youth that he decided to reveal with growing candour and verisimilitude. And by 1910, three years after his ambivalent note and after he had settled into the Rue Lepsius apartment for the rest of his life, signalling his accommodation with the city, Alexandria began to be transformed in the central “historical” myth of his mature work.[22]

Although early on in his career he submitted his poetry to magazines this fell off and he chose to self-publish, distributing his poems to specific people who he hoped would appreciate them:

Those poems that Cavafy allowed to be printed during his lifetime were distributed to a restricted audience. He would pass them out as they seemed ready to his trusted friends first in sample pamphlets, then as broadsheets and offprints, these usually gathered into folders that could be supplemented regularly, some of the older poems revised by hand now and then, a few suppressed. And when the clips in the folders could no longer bear the burden of additional poems, the poet would withdraw some and have them sewn into booklets.[23]

His work was after all revolutionary: he’s most definitely an anti-Romantic; nature and the countryside are rarely mentioned in his poems and never its focus (see ‘Lovely White Flowers’). Like Baudelaire, whose work he admired, the setting of Cavafy’s world is the city. The Chilean Nicanor Parra is known as the father of anti-poetry—his first collection of antipoems appeared in 1954—but Cavafy was doing for Greek poetry exactly what Parra did years later for Spanish:

That he rejected the music of the demotic fifteen-syllable verse, that he completely ignored the folk song, that he banished compound words and current poetic images from his poetry … constituted, of course, a revolution.[24]

Now, and especially in translation, it’s hard to see what all the fuss was about especially since he was hardly read but word obviously spread:

[W]hile the older writers of the preceding generation disapproved violently of Cavafy, the younger writers of the period turned their attention to him with affection. […] Agras spoke, in discussing his work, “about his contemptuous scepticism with regard to every faith.” Thyros affirmed that Cavafy “believed in negation.” The scepticism, the irony of Cavafy were the subjects that attracted criticism. As always occurs with great writing, the current generation was reflected in the work of Cavafy and recognised itself in it.[25]

cavafy-old-eps-copy-2The reason he chose not to seek publication of his work during his lifetime has been debated because there certainly appears to have been a growing demand. The answer may lie in a remark Giorgos Seferis made; he said that after about 1910 Cavafy’s work “should be read and judged not as a series of separate poems, but as one and the same poem.”[26] Seferis saw Cavafy’s perception of his oeuvre as a life-long work in progress, still incomplete at his death. While in Athens being treated for throat cancer he apparently said he had twenty-five poems still to complete. These, and others, remained hidden within the Cavafy archives until unearthed by Cavafy’s editor, George Savidis, in 1961.

Much has been written about the problems translators face when approaching the work of Cavafy. The first is the fact that he wrote in both Katharevousa, a conservative form of the Modern Greek language conceived in the early 19th century as a compromise between Ancient Greek and Demotic Greek, and Demotic. As a Scot the best way I can imagine this is to conceive a poet who wrote in both Lallans (what Hugh MacDiarmid called synthetic Scots) and Glaswegian. (To get the idea see the note on ‘Days of 1909, ’10, ’11’ below.)

Ian Parks, whose own poetry is known for being “spare, lyrical, memorable and intense”[27] and who is probably best known as a love poet (he has apparently been described by Chiron Review as “the finest love poet of his generation”[28]), is the latest to have a crack at presenting Cavafy’s poetry to an English-speaking audience. It’s a modest approach, only ten poems, but an impressive one nevertheless. The Cavafy Variations comprises the following:

  • Candles [1899]
  • The City [1910]
  • Unfaithfulness [1904]
  • The Watchman [1900]
  • As Kleitos Lies Dying [1926]
  • The Deadline [1918]
  • Prayer [1898]
  • The First Step [1899]
  • The God Abandons Antony [1911]
  • If Possible [1913] (Usually entitled ‘As Much as You Can’)

The dates above are the earliest publication dates; ‘published’ in the Cavafian sense that is. It’s not quite a ‘Best of’ as a number of the better known poems—‘Walls’, ‘Ithaca’ and ‘Waiting for the Barbarians’—are missing but the poems do provide examples from all points of his career. As a sampler then it’s fine. If nothing here grabs you then he’s probably not the poet for you.

Variations are common in music—just think of theEnigma Variations or Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini or even the theme to The South Bank Show from Andrew Lloyd Webber’s album Variations—but not so much in poetry: we would probably talk of “loose translations” and a good example of this is the collection The Jaguar’s Dreamby the Australian poet John Kinsella. There’s nothing in the booklet to tell us whether Parks went back to the original Greek or simply reimagined, to use a popular buzzword, the poems based on readings of the various existing translations. Parks is a Yorkshire lad, son of a miner no less (hard not to think of Stand Up, Nigel Barton and Monty Python’s‘Northern Playwright’ sketch) and they’re not big Greek speakers in Mexborough. Being no Greek scholar myself and having read enough over the last few days about the problems facing translators of Cavafy’s poetry, the only thing I can do is compare these new poems to the translations available to me and see whether Parks’s poems stand in their own right. The rhymes and rhythms of especially the earlier poems will be lost—that’s inevitable—but has “the tone of voice” that Auden spoke of survived? Let’s look at one poem in detail, the second half of ‘The City’ (you don’t need to read them all):

You won’t find a new country, won’t find another shore.
This city will always pursue you. You will walk
the same streets, grow old in the same neighbourhoods,
will turn grey in these same houses.
You will always end up in this city. Don’t hope for things elsewhere:
there is no ship for you, there is no road.
As you’ve wasted your life here, in this small corner,
you’ve destroyed it everywhere else in the world.

[Edmund Keeley/Philip Sherrard]


You shall not find new places; other seas
you shall not find. The place shall follow you.
And you shall walk the same familiar streets,
and you shall age in the same neighbourhood,
and whiten in these same houses. Ever this place
shall you arrive at. There is neither ship,
nor road, for you, to bring you otherwhere.
As here, in this small nook, you wrecked your life,
even so you spoilt it over all the earth.

[John Cavafy, the poet’s brother and his first translator]


You will find no other place, no other shores.
This city will possess you, and you’ll wander the same
streets. In these same neighbourhoods you’ll grow old;
in these same houses you’ll turn grey.
Always you’ll return to this city. Don’t even hope for another.
There’s no boat for you, there’s no other way out.
In the way you’ve destroyed your life here,
in this little corner, you’ve destroyed it everywhere else.

[Stratis Haviaras]


Fresh lands you shall not find, you shall not find other seas.
The city shall ever follow you.
In streets you shall wander that are the same streets and
grow old in quarters that are the same
and among these very same houses you shall turn grey.
You shall always be returning to the city. Hope not;
there is no ship to take you to other lands, there is no road.
You have so spoiled your life here in this tiny corner
that you have ruined it in all the world.

[George Vlassopoulos]


You will find no new lands, you will find no other seas.
The city will follow you. You will roam the same
streets. And you will age in the same neighbourhoods;
and you will grow grey in these same houses.
Always you will arrive in this city. Do not hope for any other –
There is no ship for you, there is no road.
As you have destroyed your life here
in this little corner, you have ruined it in the entire world.

[Rae Dalven]


You’ll find no new places, you won’t find other shores.
The city will follow you. The streets in which you pace
will be the same, you’ll haunt the same familiar places,
and inside those same houses you’ll grow old.
You’ll always end up in this city. Don’t bother to hope
for a ship, a route, to take you somewhere else; they don’t exist.
Just as you’ve destroyed your life, here in this
small corner, so you’ve wasted it through all the world.

[Donald Mendelshon]


Any new lands you will not find; you'll find no other seas.
The city will be following you. In the same streets
you'll wander. And in the same neighbourhoods you'll age,
and in these same houses you will grow grey.
Always in this same city you'll arrive. For elsewhere—do not hope
There is no ship for you, there is no road.
Just as you've wasted your life here,
in this tiny niche, in the entire world you've ruined it.

[Evangelos Sachperoglou]

You will not find new lands, you will not find other seas.
The city will follow you. You will roam
the same streets. And you will grow old in the same neighbourhood,
and your hair will turn white in the same houses.
You will always arrive in this city. Don’t hope for elsewhere –
there is no ship for you, there is no road.
As you have wasted your life here,
in this small corner, so you have ruined it on the whole earth.

[Aliki Barnstone]


There’s no new land, my friend, no
New sea; for the city will follow you,
In the same streets you’ll wander endlessly,
The same mental suburbs slip from youth to age,
In the same house go white at last —
The city is a cage.
No other places, always this
Your earthly landfall, and no ship exists
To take you from yourself. Ah! don’t you see Just as you’ve ruined your life in this
One plot of ground you’ve ruined its worth
Everywhere now — over the whole earth?

[Lawrence Durrell]


You will not find other places, you will not find other seas.
The city will follow you. All roads you walk
will be these roads. And you will age in these same neighbourhoods;
and in these same houses you will go grey.
Always you will end up in this city. For you
there is no boat—abandon hope of that—no road to other things.
The way you've botched your life here, in this small corner,
makes for your ruin everywhere on earth.

[Theoharis Constantine Theoharis]


There is no other city, no new place.
This lost metropolis will track you down.
Age will make you tread the empty streets,
frequent the shabby regions every night –
hidden quarters, hidden houses all the same.
There are no roads to help you escape,
no ships to speed you on your way.
The damage that you did will follow you.
You’ll take this city with you when you go.

[Ian Parks]


Καινούριους τόπους δεν θα βρεις, δεν θάβρεις άλλες θάλασσες.
Η πόλις θα σε ακολουθεί. Στους δρόμους θα γυρνάς
τους ίδιους. Και στες γειτονιές τες ίδιες θα γερνάς•
και μες στα ίδια σπίτια αυτά θ’ ασπρίζεις.
Πάντα στην πόλι αυτή θα φθάνεις. Για τα αλλού — μη ελπίζεις—
δεν έχει πλοίο για σε, δεν έχει οδό.
Έτσι που τη ζωή σου ρήμαξες εδώ
στην κώχη τούτη την μικρή, σ’ όλην την γη την χάλασες.

[C.P. Cavafy]

Alexandria

Alexandria

I’ve left Cavafy’s original to the end so you can compare the shape of the Greek with Parks’s variation. By all means paste the text into Google Translate and see what you make of it. It’s obvious simply glancing at the two that he’s taken liberties with the text. I was puzzled by his choice of ‘lost metropolis’. No one else uses that expression and the Greek ‘Η πόλις θα σε ακολουθεί’ translates simply as ‘The city will follow you’; I translated the English phrase back into Greek and the two sentences match perfectly. So why the change? Perhaps because Cavafy’s early poems often included rhymes—frequently homophonous and the unrhymed poems usually follow strict syllabic patterns normally varying between eleven and sixteen syllable lines—and as direct transliteration would cause these to vanish the translator must compensate when he can. Of this poem, in an earlier draft admittedly, Cavafy writes:

‘In the Same City’ is from one point of view perfect. The versification and chiefly the rhymes are faultless. Out of the seven rhymes on which this poem is built, 3 are identical in sound and 1 has the accent on the antepenultimate.[29]

In his version Parks also expands the sentence ‘The city will follow you’ to include ‘track you down’ rather than simply ‘follow’ because ‘ακολουθώ’ has the connotation of ‘come after as a consequence of previous events’. A nice catch.

In the last line Google didn’t like the word ‘κώχη’ so I looked it up elsewhere and was given the translation ‘nook’. A nook is a small thing, not a metropolis and so although ‘lost metropolis’ has a nice sound to it, it works against what the poet is saying later, that the mistakes the narrator’s made in this small corner of the world will haunt him wherever in the big bad world he finds himself. I can see why Parks might use the word ‘metropolis’ because the word for ‘city’ in Greek is polis. Although in later works he glorified Alexandria back in 1907, Cavafy did indeed consider it a small corner of the world. In a note he wrote:

I have grown accustomed to Alexandria, and it is quite probable that even if I were rich I would stay here. But, despite this, how it constricts me. What an impediment, what a burden a small town is—what an absence of freedom.

I would stay here (then again I am not completely sure if I would remain) because it is like a homeland, because it is associated with the memories of my life.

Yet, how necessary for a man like me—so particular—is a big city.

Londres [London], for instance…[30]

And in an early draft of ‘The City’ he really doesn’t pull his punches:

I hate the people here and they hate me,
here where I’ve lived all my life.[31]

Having read quite a bit about Cavafy’s life I can see why Parks might’ve included the lines:

frequent the shabby regions every night –
hidden quarters, hidden houses all the same.

These were the parts of the city Cavafy slunk to at night and they reflect the (at times) overbearing disgust he felt at the time of writing. It was only in his forties that he became more comfortable with his sexual orientation. In the early years he was clearly ashamed of his lifestyle. He frequented the quartier around the Rue d'Anastsi, where it was easy to find poor young Greek men who would provide sexual favours in return for small amount of cash and bribed his servants to ruffle up his sheets at night so his mother wouldn’t realize he’d not been home.

One friend recalled … that he would return from his exploits and write, in large letters on a piece of paper, “I swear I won’t do it again.”[32]

He did, of course.

Cavafy Hockney

David Hockney, ‘The Beginning’
fromIllustrations for Fourteen Poems by C,P Cavafy (1966)

Parks misses out on the “abandon hope” sentiment. It could easily have been incorporated in the line ‘There are no roads, [no hope of] escape’. Although the writer’s hopelessness is implied I wonder if there’s a reason Cavafy chose to underline it? He says ‘do not hope’ or something close to that but when Theoharis uses ‘abandon hope’ it’s hard not to think of the words ‘Abandon all hope, you who enter here’ or am I reading between the lines?

‘Age will make you tread the empty streets’ sounds awkward. The notion of gravitating to familiar haunts is missing. Durrell has the right idea but his language is every bit as awkward: ‘The same mental suburbs slip from youth to age.’ The city is a mental construct. Cavafy rarely writes in his poems about the Alexandria he could see out of his window; it was either the city he remembered or one he imagined. Usually a bit of both. Durrell hits the nail on the head though when he writes “no ship exists / To take you from yourself.” Of course he could be accused of trying to interpret the poem for his reader and that’s always a danger in any translation and Parks can also be accused of that; it must be hard not to. That aside what he has produced is an eminently readable “variation” of the poem. It flows like English. The broad strokes are still intact. Maybe some of the fine details have been lost or traded but as André Aciman points out in his lengthy comparison of various translations of ‘The City’:

What never ceases to baffle anyone studying the many translations of this one poem is that each is so different. And yet no one gets it quite right either—even though, on rereading this poem for the nth time, it is really quite a simple and straightforward poem. Why so many versions? Why the need for yet one more go at it?[33]

Why indeed? Of the versions above it might be an idea to dwell on the translation by his brother. Admittedly English was his second language but he and Constantine corresponded often (translations of various letters can be found here) and they frequently discussed the nuances of English. Specific examples can be found here, here and especially here where John discusses the proper use of ‘shall’ as opposed to ‘will’. Is his the most faithful version? Faithful to what? The text or the spirit? A response to Aciman’s article by Eric Dean Wilson of Archipelago Books can be found here.

Of the ten poems chosen by Parks it was the philosophical that chimed with me from the line of lit and extinguished candles in ‘Candles’ through the damage that follows us in ‘The City’ to the life that becomes nothing more than a “tedious acquaintance” in ‘If Possible’. All these focus on a sense of belatedness as do the historical because, inevitably, the past is lost to us:

It’s not the time to have regrets,
to brood upon the glories of your past
or curse the good luck you once had
now that it’s faltering, running low.

[from ‘The God Abandons Antony’]

Gods abound—both Christian and pagan—but they’re impotent:

the idol is impervious;
it doesn’t hear or care

[from ‘As Kleitos Lies Dying’]


The icon hears unblinking, powerless

[from ‘Prayer’]

or insensitive as in the case of ‘The God Abandons Antony’. ‘Unfaithfulness’ and ‘The Deadline’.

It’s the march of history which overpowers all. The prophecy in ‘The Deadline’ reminded me of what the witches in Macbeth had to say aboutBirnam Wood. When Nero is warned by Apollo, “Beware the age of seventy-three,” he assumes he has time. With “the deadline more than thirty years away” he never imagines he might have anything to fear from a seventy-three-year-old man.

‘Candles’ is the perfect poem to open this grouping because it is exemplifies the betwixtness inherent in Cavafy’s poetry, trapped between a squandered past and an uncertain future. The Watchman in the poem of the same name, however, “knows the waiting has to end”:

Much will be said in the halls of state
About what’s to be gained and what’s to lose.
The secret is to listen, nod, and not believe.

The one thing man learns from history, however, is that man learns nothing from history:

        At each street corner, looking back
I see myself among the ruined squares,
the cafés and the harbour bars,
repeating the identical mistakes.


[from ‘The City’]

It will most likely be the historical poems of Cavafy that people struggle with primarily because his interests are the backwaters of Greek history.

The chief periods in which Cavafy sets his historical poems are the Hellenistic (fourth to first centuries BC), the Roman (first century BC to fourth century AD), and the late Byzantine (eleventh to fourteenth centuries)

[...]

For most people who study Ancient History, the Greek history they learn about ends with the death of Alexander the Great [in 323 BC].[34]

Pythia Aegeus Themis Delphi[1]Thankfully the poems that Parks chooses to include in his booklet are more accessible. We know who Mark Antony and Nero are and we’ve heard of Troy and the oracle of Delphi. I knew about Mount Olympus but Mount Arachnaion was new to me; archaeologists have found remains of altars to Zeus and Hera there. It’s not a big issue because the point the poem has to make, that no one is irreplaceable (even the gods have been replaced) and there’s always someone ready to step into our shoes. That is as relevant today and it was when the fires of those altars were lit for the first time.

I’ve mentioned the homoerotic content of Cavafy’s work but there’re no good examples of it The Cavafy Variations and little sensual even apart from a few lines in ‘The God Abandons Antony’ and even there it’s a looking back with regret as shown in the quote above. The god is not named and some have assumed it to be Dionysus, the god of the grape harvest, winemaking and wine, of ritual madness and ecstasy:

The poem refers to Plutarch's story of how Antony, besieged in Alexandria by Octavian, heard the sounds of instruments and voices of a procession making its way through the city, then passing out; the god Bacchus (Dionysus), Antony's protector, was deserting him. – Wikipedia

The above is not wrong. It’s a starting point but Edmund Keeley has his own thoughts on the subject:

Cavafy … cunningly replaced Plutarch’s Dionysus and Shakespeare’s Hercules by the city itself as the god who abandons Antony in his moment of ultimate defeat after Actium, the god’s departure signalled by a sudden passing of an invisible procession of musicians. The poem suggests that Alexandria had a godlike power to move the minds of mortals with poetic conceptions of itself, at least in those they city finds worthy to receive this divine gift—a gift that can be withdrawn as well as granted.[35]

It is a poem that resonates with ‘The City’. In both instances a man’s life is in ruins. Cavafy uses that exact metaphor in the first stanza of ‘The City’ but it’s implied too in ‘The God Abandons Antony’.

But there’s nothing here that, to my mind, warrants the title “erotic poet” as you’ll find him often referred to online. There are young men, Evmenius in ‘The First Step’ and Kleitos in ‘As Kleitos Lies Dying’ but there’s nothing like this:

One Night

The room was cheap and sordid,
hidden above the suspect taverna.
From the window you could see the alley,
dirty and narrow. From below
came the voices of workmen
playing cards, enjoying themselves.

And there on that common, humble bed
I had love’s body, had those intoxicating lips,
red and sensual,
red lips of such intoxication
that now as I write, after so many years,
in my lonely house, I’m drunk with passion again.

[Edmund Keeley/Philip Sherrard]

Of course if you came upon the poem by chance and knew nothing of Cavafy there’s you might easily think the subject of the poem is a woman (besides not every poem by Cavafy is about homosexuals); this is commonplace in the poems prior to 1919. This later one makes its point clearer:

Days of 1909, ’10, and ’11

He was the son of a much put-upon, impoverished
sailor (from an island in the Aegean Sea).
He worked at a blacksmith’s. He wore threadbare clothes;
his workshoes split apart, the wretched things.
His hands were completely grimed with rust and oil.

Evenings, when he was closing up the shop,
if there was anything he was really longing for,
some tie that cost a little bit of money,
some tie that was just right for a Sunday,
or if in a shop window he’d seen and yearned for
some beautiful shirt in mauve:
one or two shillings is what he’d sell his body for.

I ask myself whether in antique times
glorious Alexandria possessed a youth more beauteous, [36]
a lad more perfect than he—for all that he was lost:
for of course there never was a statue or portrait of him;
thrown into a blacksmith’s poor old shop,
he was quickly spoiled by the arduous work,
the common debauchery, so ruinous.

[Daniel Mendelshon] [published in 1928]

But it’s still not exactly titillating is it? Or was I expecting pornographic? All his poems are post-coital. He’s not particularly interested in the sex. But then he’s not exactly interested in love either. He’s interested in memories which are the building blocks of the imagination:

The aging of my body and face
is a wound from a horrible knife.
I'm not resigned to it at all.
O Art of Poetry, I resort to you
who know a little about medicines:
attempts to deaden pain through Imagination and Language.

[from ‘Melancholy of Jason Kleander, Poet in Kommagini, A.D. 595’]

Old Men

from Shades of Love: Photographs Inspired by the Poems of C. P. Cavafy
Dimitris Yeros

I was so struck by this notion that I ended up writing my own poem, ‘Not Now’ which begins:

Now is no use to poets.
It has
its uses

but best leave it to ripen
or rot.
Either’s good.

Says it better than prose although Cavafy doesn’t do too badly:

The most lively events do not inspire me at once. First, time must pass. Then later I remember them and am inspired.[37]

With me the immediate impression does not provide the impulse for work. The impression must become part of the past, must be falsified of itself, by time, without my having to falsify it.[38]

Even before Cavafy was an old man he was imagining being an old man looking back on his sexual escapades:

Very Seldom

He's an old man. Used up and bent,
crippled by time and indulgence,
he slowly walks along the narrow street.
But when he goes inside his house to hide
the shambles of his old age, his mind turns
to the share in youth that still belongs to him.
His verse is now recited by young men.
His visions come before their lively eyes.
Their healthy sensual minds,
their shapely taut bodies
stir to his perception of the beautiful.

[Edmund Keeley/Philip Sherrard]

Would it be too crass to say he gets off on regret? He wrote that when he was forty-one but he’d already written ‘An Old Man’ in 1894 when he was only thirty-one. What is it saying though that ‘The City’ and ‘The God Abandons Antony’ is not? When Giorgos Seferis said that Cavafy’s entire oeuvre effectively comprises a single poem, a “work in progress”,[39] he’s probably right and it underlines why he never sought to publish a definitive collection in his lifetime: he simply wasn’t done. In his introduction to the Oxford edition of Cavafy’s Collected Poems Peter Mackridge writes:

In most of Cavafy’s poems the speaker cannot be identified with the poet himself. These poems do not seem to present the poet’s own experiences, thoughts and feelings; they are like fictions that create, explore and experiment with alternative and parallel lives. In Cavafy’s poetic oeuvre there are no fewer than 251 named characters, 130 of them historical, sixty-four mythological, and fifty-seven fictional, in addition to a large number of anonymous figures.[40]

I get where he’s coming from but I’m not sure I agree. It’s not a matter of he’s wrong and I’m right but perhaps since I’ve spent the last few days completely embroiled in Cavafy’s world I find I see him in everything.

There is genuine ambivalence regarding his feelings about homosexuality. In a 1902 note he wrote:

I do not know if perversion empowers. I sometimes think so. But it is certain that it is a source of greatness.[41]

How to read that sentence? It sounds like a declamation but I’m not sure it is because of something E.M. Forster mentions in a letter to Cavafy:

Dear Cavaffy [sic]

Valassopoulo [an Egyptian lawyer who also translated Cavafy] was over this afternoon and told me that since I saw you something occurred that has made you very unhappy; that you believed the artist must be depraved; and that you were willing he should tell the above to your friends.[42]

All you have to do is look at his poems and the evidence is there:

In his poetry homosexual love is often described with the kind of vocabulary used by the society in which he lived: 'aberrant pleasure' ('A young man of letters...'), 'a love that's barren and deprecated' (‘Theatre of Sidon (A.D. 400)’)--the opposite of 'healthful love' ('In an old book').[43]

Often he uses “homoerotic code-words”,[44] as Peter Mackridge calls them; in modern parlance the equivalent expression would probably be ‘gay code’.

They looked with desire and affection at the statues –
but they talked to each other hesitantly,
with innuendos, with ambiguous words,
with phrases full of caution,

[from ‘The Bishop Pegasius’ translated Daniel Mendelshon]

“These are not intended to conceal,” Mackridge explains, “but rather to be understood by sensitive and sympathetic readers.”[45] That said “Cavafy was a virtuoso of both impression management and the fine arts of discretion.”[46]

It really is impossible to know deep down what Cavafy felt about himself. My suspicion is that, as I said earlier, he learned to live with himself but perhaps not like himself and there are plenty of examples of gay men over the years that fit that bill; Kenneth Williams, for one, jumps to mind. (Dr. Peter Jeffreys’ essay ‘Cavafian Catoptromancy’ provides some interesting thoughts on the subject as does Margaret Alexiou’s article ‘Eroticism and Poetry’.) Perhaps the most relevant piece of advice I took from Alexiou’s piece was a brief quote by Yangos Pieridis:

If you try to explain every poem autobiographically, it does not work: Cavafy used masks.[47]

As a poet myself I know full well that the ‘I’ in my poems is not always me or at least not all me or the real me. I should do Cavafy the same favour and not presume:

I am the 'I' beneath the text; I am both the question and the answer....[48]

One final poem from Cavafy:

Significance

The years of my youth, my life of pleasure –
how well I grasp their significance now.

Regrets are so unnecessary and pointless.

But at the time I couldn’t grasp their significance.

In the wanton ways of my youth
the course of my poetry was laid out,
the contours of my art were fashioned.

That’s why the regrets never took hold,
and any resolve toward restraint or change
lasted never more than a week or two, at best.

[Stratis Haviaras]

This has been a fascinating few days reading Cavafy’s poetry in various translations and also dipping into the many articles there are online about the man and his writing. As actual reviews goes I’ve really said very little about The Cavafy Variations apart from pulling ‘The City’ to pieces. That said I actually like what Parks has done but I still want to go away and try to have a crack at it myself; I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing and that’s probably what motivated Parks in the first place. The bottom line is that it’s an okay introduction to Cavafy. These are not necessarily the ten poems I would’ve picked but I’d hate to be asked to pick ten of my own poems that would provide readers with a representative cross-section of my work IF indeed that’s what Parks intended to do here. Maybe he just picked the ten poems he liked the best and that’s a perfectly valid selection method too.

[T]here are two schools of thought, with nuanced positions between. Loosely speaking, these may be dubbed ‘literalist’ and ‘Poundian’. A literal translation is one in which as nearly as possible, the English version should be an exact transfer from the original language; in contrast, the idea of Pound and others was (and is) that a translation first and foremost try to capture the ‘spirit’ of the original and transform it into poetry in English.[49]

It does puzzle me why Cavafy didn’t provide his own English versions because, according to translator George Economou, although he doesn’t say where he’s quoting from, Cavafy only “tacitly tolerated” [50] the translations he saw of his work during his lifetime. Who knows?  Robert Lowell called his own attempts at translation "Imitations". It puts the whole process into perspective. “Variations” is another good term.

CavafyCVR2.inddThe Cavafy Variations is available from Rack Press for £5.00. As much as I enjoyed reading these and Parks does a decent job with his “variations”—although he does tend (wisely I think) to veer towards the Poundian—the frugal Scot in me would rather go for a used copy of his complete poems. At time of writing Dalven’s The Complete Poems of Cavafy was available for £5.24, Theoharis’s Before Time Could Change Them: The Complete Poems of Constantine P.Cavafy for £8.26, Haviaras’s The Canon: The Original One Hundred and Fifty-Four Poems for £9.83 and Sachperoglou’s C.P. Cavafy: The Collected Poems: with parallel Greek text for £6.86 although admittedly that’s for the ebook. Those with deeper pockets might be happy to fork out £15.52 for Mendelshon’s The Complete Poems of C.P. Cavafy. I couldn’t see a copy of Keeley and Sherrard’s Collected Poems on the UK site, which is odd because it’s only four years old, but as you can order it from the States for 1¢. I wouldn’t object to paying the extra postage. Of course all are available online in one form or another along with a goodly number of intelligent, thoughtful (and occasionally contradictory) essays on the man, a number of which I’ve listed below which are in addition to the texts cited from and listed in the references.

I’ll leave the last word to Maurice Leiter:

Had I Only

Lacking languages I stumble
in the darkness of translation
finding satisfaction second-hand

Here is Cavafy soft-spoken subtle
speaking free of affectation
or so it seems in this translation
said to be exemplary by many

But the curtain of my ignorance
keeps me from truly knowing him
nor is his work the sole example...




FURTHER READING


Yórgos Panayotídis, Constantine Cavafy – A biography without poetry

Chris Michaelides, Three Early Cavafy Items in The British Library

Kimon Friar, Cavafis and his Translators into English

Peter Bien, Cavafy's Three-Phase Development Into Detachment

Dimitris Dimiroulis, Cavafy's Imminent Threat: Still ‘Waiting for the Barbarians’

Lena Arampatzidou, Between the Barbarians and the Empire: Mapping Routes Toward the Nomadic Text

John P. Anton, The Special World of Cavafy's Poetry: from Symbol to Reality

Iraklis Pantopoulos, Two different faces of Cavafy in English: A corpus-assisted approach to translational stylistics

Helen Catsaouni, Cavafy and the Theatrical Representation of History

Anthony Dracopoulos, The Rhetoric of Dilemma and Cavafean Ambiguity

Davd Ricks, Cavafy and the Body of Christ

Daniel Mendelsohn, Cavafy and the Erotics of the Lost

George Kalogeris, The Sensuous Archaism of C.P. Cavafy

Cornelia A. Tsakiridou, Hellenism in C.P. Cavafy

Manuel Savidis, Cavafy Through the Looking-Glass

S. D. Kapsalis, "Privileged Moments": Cavafy's Autobiographical Inventions

Dimitris Papanikolaou, From the Darkrooms of Philology (an impassioned response to Savidis)

Robert Shannan Peckham, Cavafy and the Poetics of Space

Tilda Negri, The Metaphysics in C.P. Cavafy (click anywhere on the page to go to the index)

Latife Yazigi, Two Styles of Mental Functioning and Literary Language: A Phenomenological Psychological Reading of A. Machado and C. Cavafy

C.P. Cavafy Forum: links to various essays and articles

A booklet by the Embassy of Greece Press & Communication Office: lots of photos

C. P. Cavafy: The Typography of Desire: contains six essays including ‘Cavafy’s Greek (in Translation)’ by James Nikopoulos

Official website: a smorgasbord of all things Cavafy


REFERENCES


[1] Quoted in Daniel Mendelshon, The Complete Poems of C.P. Cavafy, p.1875

[2] Dan Chiasson, ‘Man with a Past', The New Yorker, 23 March 2009

[3]Ibid

[4] Quoted in Daniel Mendelshon, The Complete Poems of C.P. Cavafy, p.1884

[5] Quoted in Daniel Mendelshon, ‘As Good as Great Poetry Gets’, The New York Review of Books, 20 November 2008 and other places but I can’t find the original source

[6] Cavafy, toward the end of his life, insisted that “plenty of poets are poets only, but I am a historical poet.” Those last two words are one way of rendering what he said in Greek, which was piïtís istorikós; but the adjective istorikós can also be a substantive, “historian.” There is no way to prove it, but I suspect that what he meant was precisely what his work makes clear: that he was a “poet-historian.” – Daniel Mendelsohn, The Complete Poems of C.P. Cavafy, p.1900

[7] Quoted in Martin McKinsey, Hellenism and the Postcolonial Imagination: Yeats, Cavafy, Walcott, p.76

[8] J.A. Sareyannis, ‘What was most precious—his form’

[9]Ibid

[10] James D. Faubion, Cavafy/Cavafy: Toward the Principles of a Transcultural Sociology of Minor Literature, p.8

[11] J.A. Sareyannis, ‘What was most precious—his form’

[12] Quoted in Roderick Beaton, ‘The History Man’, Journal of Hellenic Diaspora, Special Double Issue: Spring-Summer 1983, p.31

[13] Quoted often, e.g. here, but I can’t find the original source

[14] Various terms get applied to these groupings. ‘Hedonic’ often replaces ‘sensual’ but apparently Cavafy treated ‘hedonic’ as a subcategory of the sensual (see Peter Mackridge, Introduction, Oxford World Classics: C.P. Cavafy: The Collected Poems)

[15] Daniel Mendelshon, The Complete Poems of C.P. Cavafy, p.1891

[16] J Phillipson, C.P. Cavafy Historical Poems, p.141

[17] Contemporary note left by Cavafy. Translated by Manuel Savidis and quoted in Daniel Mendelsohn, The Complete Poems of C.P. Cavafy, p.1891

[18] Note from 1906 quoted in Cornelia A. Tsakiridou, ‘The Photographic Dimension in Some Poems of C. P. Cavafy’, Journal of Hellenic Diaspora, September 1991, p.89

[19]Note from September 1902

[20] Quote from the Sengopoulos Notebook in Daniel Mendelshon, The Complete Poems of C.P. Cavafy

[21]Note from December 1906 translated by Manuel Savidis

[22] Edmund Keeley, ‘An Introduction’

[23]Ibid

[24] J.A. Sareyannis, ‘What was most precious—his form’

[25] Kōnstantinos Dēmaras, A History of Modern Greek Literature, pp.470, 471

[26] Quoted in Walter Kaiser, Review of C. P. Cavafy and elsewhere but I can’t find a reference to the original source

[27] Donald Davie quoted on the Waterloo Press archive page

[28] Quoted by several people but no link available to confirm

[29] C.P. Cavafy quoted in Edmund Keeley, Cavafy’s Alexandria, p.16

[30]Note from April 1907 translated by Manuel Savidis

[31] Quoted in Michael Haag, Alexandria: City of Memory, p.69

[32] Daniel Mendelshon, The Complete Poems of C.P. Cavafy, p.1881

[33] André Aciman, ‘The City, the Spirit, and the Letter: On Translating Cavafy’

[34] Peter Mackridge, Introduction, Oxford World Classics: C.P. Cavafy: The Collected Poems, p.xxiii

[35] Edmund Keeley, Cavafy’s Alexandria, p.6

[36]“In the poem’s final stanza, the narrator wonders whether even ancient Alexandria, famed for its louche and comely youths, could claim a young man as lovely as this down-at-the-heels boy. Here, the contrast between the allure of the youths in the glittering ancient city and that of a common blacksmith’s boy is suggestively conveyed by the shift in tone between the adjective used of the former, perikallis, and the noun used of the latter, agori: for the former is a high-flown katharevousa word taken directly from the Ancient Greek (which I translate by means of the rather stiff ‘beauteous’), while the latter is a noun as worn and plain as a pebble: ‘lad.’” – Daniel Mendelsohn, The Complete Poems of C.P. Cavafy, p.1900

[37] Undated fragment quoted in Roderick Beaton, ‘The History Man’, Journal of Hellenic Diaspora, Special Double Issue: Spring-Summer 1983, p.31

[38] Note from April 1929 quoted in Roderick Beaton, ‘The History Man’, Journal of Hellenic Diaspora, Special Double Issue: Spring-Summer 1983, p.32

[39] Giorgos Seferis, On the Greek Style, p.121

[40] Peter Mackridge, Introduction, Oxford World Classics: C.P. Cavafy: The Collected Poems, p.xv

[41]Note from December 1902

[42] Edward Morgan Forster ed., The Forster-Cavafy Letters: Friends at a Slight Angle, p.35

[43] Peter Mackridge, Introduction, Oxford World Classics: C.P. Cavafy: The Collected Poems, p.xx

[44]Ibid p.xxiii

[45]Ibid

[46] James D. Faubion, Cavafy/Cavafy: Toward the Principles of a Transcultural Sociology of Minor Literature, p.10

[47] Yangos Pieridis, Kavafis, p.27 quoted in Margaret Alexiou, ‘Erotocism and Poetry’, Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora, Special Double Issue: Spring-Summer 1983, p.64

[48] Presumably a quote by Cavafy. Alexiou ends her article with it but doesn’t provide any attribution and I’ve been unable to trace it elsewhere.

[49] Mike Doyle, ‘Cavafy’s Other Worlds’, Pacific Rim Review of Books

[50] Quoted in Randall Couch: Translating Cavafy: eros, memory, and art


Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking

$
0
0

quiet-final-jacket

The limited circle is pure. – Franz Kafka




My name is Jim and I’m an introvert. If there was such an organisation as Introverts Anonymous I’d have no problems standing up in front of the group and making that claim. I’ve sat the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator assessment many times and although the last three of the four dichotomies vary—sometimes I’m more Sensing than Intuition, sometimes I’m more Thinking than Feeling—the first one never changes. I am an introvert. Only now I’m not so sure. But is that a bad thing? Feeling isn’t better or worse than thinking; they complement each other.

There are a number of sites and articles online called ‘Introverts Anonymous’. Ric Sanchez wrote one here where he introduces himself as follows:

Hi, my name is Ric, and I’m a recovering introvert. I’m here to help my fellow socially-anxious.

I’m sure Ric’s a decent guy and I can see why he might equate introversion with illness because we live in a world where extroversion is presented as the norm but I don’t feel sick and subsequently have no desire to get better. There is a site called I Am an Introvert which exists to provide advice and support to introverts and I get why it exists just as I get why there are sites that offer support for blacks, gays and women all of which are perfectly normal things to be. There are also support sites for addicts, phobics and people with personality disorders, things which most of us wouldn’t want to be. Which list should we put ‘introvert’ in?

A friend of mine recently tweeted that she’d read Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking by Susan Cain and so I thought I’d take a look-see. I even set aside the book I’d just started to read it right away while I was in the mood. I expected to come away from the book feeling more comfortable with my introversion but, oddly enough, that’s not what happened and I’m not sure why. So I thought I’d write about it and see if I could work it out on the page which is what I do.

From the book’s introduction:

It makes sense that so many introverts hide even from themselves. We live with a value system that I call the Extrovert Ideal—the omnipresent belief that the ideal self is gregarious, alpha, and comfortable in the spotlight. The archetypal extrovert prefers action to contemplation, risk-taking to heed-taking, certainty to doubt. He favours quick decisions, even at the risk of being wrong. She works well in teams and socializes in groups. We like to think that we value individuality, but all too often we admire one type of individual—the kind who’s comfortable “putting himself out there.” Sure, we allow technologically gifted loners who launch companies in garages to have any personality they please, but they are the exceptions, not the rule, and our tolerance extends mainly to those who get fabulously wealthy or hold the promise of doing so.

Introversion—along with its cousins sensitivity, seriousness, and shyness—is now a second-class personality trait, somewhere between a disappointment and a pathology. Introverts living under the Extrovert Ideal are like women in a man’s world, discounted because of a trait that goes to the core of who they are. Extroversion is an enormously appealing personality style, but we’ve turned it into an oppressive standard to which most of us feel we must conform.

But what exactly is an introvert? ‘Introversion’ is one of those terms coined by psychologists that have made their way into the everyday speech of millions of people. Someone might say, “I’m a bit OCD,” and we all think we know what they mean but saying, “I’m a bit OCD,” or, “I’m a tad introverted,” is like saying, “I’ve had a touch of the flu.” Influenza is real—you can look at influenza virions under a microscope and although there are different strains, influenza is still a physical thing—whereas introversion is a manmade term, a way of classifying humans and people have been divvying up humanity for centuries: rich versus poor, free versus enslaved, believers versus nonbelievers, black versus white, left versus right. It’s in our genes to need there to be an us and a them, a normal and an abnormal. And, of course, there are people who are abnormal but let’s not get confused: different is not the same as abnormal.

influenzafigure1

No one can agree on how to define introversion. Cain writes:

[T]here is no all-purpose definition of introversion or extroversion; these are not unitary categories, like “curly-haired” or “sixteen-year-old,” in which everyone can agree on who qualifies for inclusion. For example, adherents of the Big Five school of personality psychology (which argues that human personality can be boiled down to five primary traits) define introversion not in terms of a rich inner life but as a lack of qualities such as assertiveness and sociability. There are almost as many definitions of introvert and extrovert as there are personality psychologists, who spend a great deal of time arguing over which meaning is most accurate. Some think that Jung’s ideas are outdated; others swear that he’s the only one who got it right.

As she says there are a number of personality tests based on introversion versus extroversion: Jung’s Typology, Big Five, Myers Briggs, Socionics, Enneagram.  Cain takes a broad-brush approach in how she defines it, almost a layman’s definition and (wisely, I think) doesn’t get bogged down in irrelevant minutiae; this is a book for the man in the street.

rosaparksWhen I said at the start of this article that I was an introvert you all knew what I meant. And that’s fine. This is a popular science book—an interpretation of science intended for a general audience—and so as not to lose her audience in technobabble she resorts to anecdotes, many of which are personal, to make her point. And she makes it well. She begins with two historical figures most people—certainly most Americans—will know very well: Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. This is a good way to illustrate how an introvert and an extrovert can work together to change the world but there are far more examples of what happens when extroverts fail to listen to introverts, indeed she actually suggests that the recent financial crisis could’ve been avoided had the extroverts not been in charge:

When the credit crisis threatened the viability of some of Wall Street’s biggest banks in 2007, Kaminski saw the same thing happening [as happened when he worked for Enron]. “Let’s just say that all the demons of Enron have not been exorcised,” he told the Post in November of that year. The problem, he explained, was not only that many had failed to understand the risks the banks were taking. It was also that those who did understand were consistently ignored—in part because they had the wrong personality style: “Many times I have been sitting across the table from an energy trader and I would say, ‘Your portfolio will implode if this specific situation happens.’ And the trader would start yelling at me and telling me I’m an idiot, that such a situation would never happen. The problem is that, on one side, you have a rainmaker who is making lots of money for the company and is treated like a superstar, and on the other side you have an introverted nerd. So who do you think wins?”

If introverts get lionised a bit in this book then the extroverts could complain they get caricatured. And she does talk a lot about extroverts, too much for my tastes. But there one group she doesn’t talk about much at all: the ambiverts. I sat this test and this was the result:

You're an ambivert. That means you're neither strongly introverted nor strongly extraverted. Recent research by Adam Grant of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Management has found that ambiverts make the best salespeople. Ambiverts tend to be adept at the quality of attunement. They know when to push and when to hold back, when to speak up and when to shut up. So don't fall for the myth of the extraverted sales star. Just keep being your ambiverted self.

I was cynical enough to imagine that the test is skewed so that everyone who sits it came out as an ambivert so I filled in answers that I knew would define me as an extrovert and they did. This test gave me a score of 38 which ranks me as “an introvert with some ambivert functions”; two more points and I would’ve been a fully-fledged ambivert.

ambivert-personality-continuum-scale

I’ve sat tests before to see if I was left-brained or right and usually the answers indicated that I was pretty much evenly balanced which is why I guess in the Myers-Briggs test I swing back and forth on most of the dichotomies. It was one of the stories in the book that made me start to think about this insistence towards polarisation. It was the story of Maya and Samantha. Here’s the setup:

It’s a Tuesday morning in October, and the fifth-grade class at a public school in New York City is settling down for a lesson on the three branches of American government. The kids sit cross-legged on a rug in a brightly lit corner of the room while their teacher, perched on a chair with a textbook in her lap, takes a few minutes to explain the basic concepts. Then it’s time for a group activity applying the lesson.

She divides the class into three groups of seven kids each: a legislative group, tasked with enacting a law to regulate lunchtime behaviour; an executive group, which must decide how to enforce the law; and a judicial branch, which has to come up with a system for adjudicating messy eaters.

[…]

In Maya’s group, the “executive branch,” everyone is talking at once. Maya hangs back. Samantha, tall and plump in a purple T-shirt, takes charge. She pulls a sandwich bag from her knapsack and announces, “Whoever’s holding the plastic bag gets to talk!” The students pass around the bag, each contributing a thought in turn. They remind me of the kids in The Lord of the Flies civic-mindedly passing around their conch shell, at least until all hell breaks loose.

Maya looks overwhelmed when the bag makes its way to her.

“I agree,” she says, handing it like a hot potato to the next person.

The bag circles the table several times. Each time Maya passes it to her neighbour, saying nothing.

The thing that got me about this was, in a similar situation, I would’ve been Samantha. At school I was invariably the kid who ended up taking charge of groups—admittedly because no one else usually wanted to—but I never found it a problem and I had no trouble expressing my thoughts and even convincing the group to do things my way. Not your classic introvert then. To round Maya out Cain tells us a bit more about her:

Maya … loves to go home every day after school and read. But she also loves softball, with all of its social and performance pressures. She still recalls the day she made the team after participating in tryouts. Maya was scared stiff, but she also felt strong—capable of hitting the ball with a good, powerful whack. “I guess all those drills finally paid off,” she reflected later. “I just kept smiling. I was so excited and proud—and that feeling never went away.”

I was in the rugby team at secondary school. I was never “scared stiff” to join but it did suit me to play right-wing where I got to excel at running—that is why I was on the team—rather than tackling which I was no good at. Despite my size I always hated physical conflict and in the few fights I got in I simply stopped others injuring me rather than set out to hurt them. The coach was astute enough to realise where my talents lay and used me accordingly.

The thing is when I look at the list in Cain’s book:

…reflective, cerebral, bookish, unassuming, sensitive, thoughtful, serious, contemplative, subtle, introspective, inner-directed, gentle, calm, modest, solitude-seeking, shy, risk-averse, thin-skinned.

which she describes as a “constellation of attributes” I see me. The last thing I am is:

…ebullient, expansive, sociable, gregarious, excitable, dominant, assertive, active, risk-taking, thick-skinned, outer-directed, light-hearted, bold, and comfortable in the spotlight.

When I know what I’m talking about I am confident and I’m usually more intelligent than the people I’m surrounded by so much so that they’re not usually hard to intimidate should the mood take my fancy (which, to my shame, it has done) but I’m certainly no “man of action” and am even less so the older I get and the more opportunity I get to indulge those qualities that define introverts.

MKGandhiCain does talk quite a bit about a third class however: the pseudo-introvert. Is that maybe what I am, an introvert who’s good at putting on a front? Well I can’t pretend I’ve never found myself out of my depth and had to fake it. When I was an IT trainer I spend the vast majority of my time working with small groups or individuals but later when I was asked to design a call centre course I had to include short lectures which I did not enjoy. I’ve never had problems addressing a group and have done on many occasions as long as I was prepared. I find speaking extemporaneously difficult. I do exactly the same it seems as Gandhi:

When a political struggle occurred on the committee, Gandhi had firm opinions, but was too scared to voice them. He wrote his thoughts down, intending to read them aloud at a meeting. But in the end he was too cowed even to do that.

Gandhi learned over time to manage his shyness, but he never really overcame it. He couldn’t speak extemporaneously; he avoided making speeches whenever possible. Even in his later years, he wrote, “I do not think I could or would even be inclined to keep a meeting of friends engaged in talk.”

That said I’m not, and never have been, shy and it’s a misnomer to think of introverted people as shy; I don’t hate people but I prefer them in small doses (you will always find me in the kitchen at parties). But getting back to oration, I don’t love public speaking but if I’m well prepared, have rehearsed enough and have a glass of water to hand then I can cope. I don’t get off the podium dripping with sweat and I’ve never thrown up before, after or during a talk. But I’m not a naturally-gifted speaker. Cain devotes an entire chapter of her book to public speaking. In it she talks about our ability to stretch our personalities:

We might call this the “rubber band theory” of personality. We are like rubber bands at rest. We are elastic and can stretch ourselves, but only so much.

Preconceptions encourage prejudgement. Oh, you’re an introvert so you won’t be able to do x, y or z. Who says? Cain’s book is full of examples of coping mechanisms, helping introverts blend in (and even excel) in a world full of extroverts. Part of her solution to the problem is for introverts to recognise the effects stretching their personalities can have on them. A spring or a rubber band will return to its original shape unless too great a force is applied to it over too long a time. So too with people. Cain gives numerous examples of adaptive strategies. Greg wants weekly dinner parties at his home and with his wife present as hostess; Emily wants none. The solution?

Instead of focusing on the number of dinner parties they’d give, they started talking about the format of the parties. Instead of seating everyone around a big table, which would require the kind of all-hands conversational multitasking Emily dislikes so much, why not serve dinner buffet style, with people eating in small, casual conversational groupings on the sofas and floor pillows? This would allow Greg to gravitate to his usual spot at the centre of the room and Emily to hers on the outskirts, where she could have the kind of intimate, one-on-one conversations she enjoys.

This issue solved, the couple was now free to address the thornier question of how many parties to give. After some back-and-forth, they agreed on two evenings a month—twenty-four dinners a year—instead of fifty-two. Emily still doesn’t look forward to these events. But she sometimes enjoys them in spite of herself. And Greg gets to host the evenings he enjoys so much, to hold on to his identity, and to be with the person he most adores—all at the same time.

Compromise is often hard but it seems like extroverts have a harder time with it than introverts because they often either refuse to listen or don’t listen properly. It’s a sweeping statement and probably less true in the home than it is in the worlds of politics and business.

Of course Cain’s not the first person to tackle this subject. Jonathan Rauch wrote an entertaining article for The Atlantic—one called ‘Caring for Your Introvert’ which tackles many of the issues Cain does but with a lightness that’s lacking in her book. He says, for example, “Remember, someone you know, respect and interact with every day is an introvert, and you are probably driving this person nuts.” Cain says the same but not quite as memorably. In her review for The New York Times Judith Warner said that Quiet is “a long and ploddingly earnest book [which] would have greatly benefited from some of [Rauch’s] levity. (That’s where I learned about Rauch by the way.) That doesn’t mean that Cain’s isn’t eminently quotable and Goodreads has several pages devoted to quotes from the book like:

Love is essential, gregariousness is optional.

and

Naked lions are just as dangerous as elegantly dressed ones.

On Goodreads 74% give the book a rating of 4-stars or higher (on Amazon the figure is 85%) and I can see why the book is popular. There’s a website to go with the book on which there’s a quiz to check if you’re an introvert or an extrovert. Apparently I’m a Strong Introvert. I guess it depends on how you phrase the questions, eh? Now I am being cynical. Jon Ronson in his review for The Guardian also took the test. This is what he reports:

I do the test. I answer "true" to exactly half the questions. Even though I'm in many ways a textbook introvert (my crushing need for "restorative niches" such as toilet cubicles is eerie) I'm actually an ambivert. I do the test on my wife. She answers true to exactly half the questions too. We're both ambiverts. Then I do the test on my son. I don't get to the end because to every question – "I prefer one-on-one conversations to group activities. I enjoy solitude …"– he replies: "Sometimes. It depends." So he's also an ambivert.

If she’s included a ‘Sometimes’ option there’s no doubt what I would’ve been too.

I can’t say I didn’t enjoy much of this book but it is overly long and I’m not just saying that because I don’t like long books. There is a lot of good stuff here and if you come across a cheap enough second-hand copy and are unhappy with your introversion (key phrase here) then you may well find what she has to say helpful. If, like me, you don’t find being who you are a burden and aren’t obsessed with labelling yourself then maybe this one isn’t for you. mehBeing who I am can be a minor inconvenience at times but that’s about the worst I can say. It would be helpful if I was more outgoing—I might sell some more damn books for starters (in that respect Cain is a shining example of how to get over yourself and get out there and promote)—but then I wouldn’t be me and I don’t hate being me; I hate others for making me feel that I could improve on being me. Maybe I could. But at what cost?

Last word: my wife recently returned from America and had a couple of pressies for me. One was a T-shirt with the interjection meh. on it. She knows me well.

Silence in the writings of Guillevic and Beckett

$
0
0

The_attraction_of_emptiness

Silence, yes, but what silence! For it is all very fine to keep silence, but one has also to consider the kind of silence one keeps. – Samuel Beckett




I discovered the French poet Eugène Guillevic a while back when, on a whim, I decided I’d have a go at translating a poem from French into English. You can see how well I did here. The poem I picked was actually only an excerpt from a long poem entitled Art poétique, poème 1985-1986 although it really is a collection of about 160 short—occasionally tiny—poems all of which stand perfectly well on their own and yet are obviously connected to the surrounding material. The same is true of the book-length poem Carnac of which its translator Denise Levertov writes:

Guillevic has sustained a profound book-length poem, but formally his method in it remains the sequence of short poems, each paradoxically autonomous yet closely related to one another.

Since I couldn’t find an English translation of the section I’d picked online (although, oddly, there was one in Russian) I decided to buy the book and I’m glad I did because Guillevic (he dropped the Eugène in later life) was right down my street.

He was born on August 5th, 1907 in Carnac which is a commune beside the Gulf of Morbihan on the south coast of Brittany in the Morbihandepartment in north-western France and then, in 1909, moved to Jeumont on the Belgian border. Of course if you’re not familiar with France you probably imagine that everyone in France speaks French—a not unreasonable assumption—but in Carnac they speak Breton, a language more closely related to Cornish than French, and in Jeumont, although French dominates in that area, there are two significant minority languages, Dutch and Picard. Moving then to Alsace near the Swiss border the next language he had to become familiar with was Alsatian—a German dialect—so the fact is that this French poet didn’t actually hear conversational French spoken about him until he was twenty. This would be about the same age Beckett was (they were contemporaries) when he first moved to France to take up the post of lecteur d'anglais in the École Normale Supérieure in Paris; in fact they will have been neighbours for a time although I have no idea if they ever met. Beckett, of course, famously turned his back on English to write in French and, although also something of a polyglot himself, the fact is that French was not his native tongue. As Rolf Breuer notes:

It was a transformation from a witty satirist using all the resources of [Beckett’s] native English to a writer treating themes of intellectual poverty and impotence who turned to French as a means of conveying these subjects adequately.[1]

Their mature poetry has much in common. James Sallis writes:

Gradually over the years Guillevic developed a poetry of common speech, a poetry without artifice; he did not want to knit an alternative world from the warp and woof of language, but to ferret out what knowledge he could of the actual world, to find what identification he could with the world and things of the world, from among the baffles of self and of language.[2]

Of course, when I hear something like “poetry of common speech, without artifice”, that makes me think of the antipoetry of Nicanor Parra who exhibits a similar distaste for standard poetic pomp and function.

guillevic1Guillevic is his own man though and I reference these others only to put him in perspective. You wouldn’t jump to call Beckett a poet of the landscape and yet landscape—especially that of his childhood—clearly informs his choices. He was at home wandering around the bleak hills surrounding Dublin as Guillevic was comfortable in the bare, fraught landscape of Brittany. (Even though he was only two when the family moved away from Carnac he retained an abiding love for the place. “Brittany acts as a centre of gravitation in his oeuvre.”[3]) Likewise they both have an abiding love and need of silence.

Comme certainties musiques
Le poème fait chanter le silence,

Amene jusqu’à toucher
Un autre silence,

Encore plus silence.

Like some music
The poem makes silence sing,

Leads us until we touch
Another silence,

Even more silence.

from Art Poètique (pp.74,75)

This reminded me of something Charles Juliet said about Beckett:

Beckett tells Juliet that he often sat through whole days in silence in his cottage in Ussy-sur-Marne. With no paper before him, no intent to write, he took pleasure in following the course of the sun across the sky: "There is always something to listen to" he says. So Beckett didn't experience silence as silence: it was attention.[4]

Or as Guillevic might have put it:

I’m here
Doing nothing.

But maybe
I’m out hunting.

from Art Poètique (p.109)

Juliet forced himself to break the first silence by telling Beckett of how his appreciation of his work changed after reading Texts for Nothing: "what had impressed me most" he says "was the peculiar silence that reigns... a silence attainable only in the furthest reaches of the most extreme solitude, when the spirit has abandoned and forgotten everything and is no more than a receiver capturing the voice that murmurs within us when all else is silent. A peculiar silence, indeed, and one prolonged by the starkness of the language. A language devoid of rhetoric or literary allusions, never parasitized by the minimal stories required to develop what it has to say."

– Yes, he agrees in a low voice, when you listen to yourself, it's not literature you hear.[5]

Beckett’s late writing (not simply his poetry, of course) has this in common with Guillevic’s approach to poetry; a voluntary poverty:

Il te faut de la pauvreté
dans ton domaine.

C'est comme ce besoin qu'on peut avoir
d'un mur blanchi à la chaux.

Une richesse, une profusion
de mots, de phrases, d'idées

t'empêcheraient de te centrer
d'aller, de rester

là où tu veux
où tu dois aller

pour ouvrir,
pour recueillir.

Ta chambre intérieure
est un lieu de pauvreté.

You need some poverty
In your domain.

It’s like the need you can feel
For a whitewashed wall.

A wealth, a profusion
Of words, sentences, ideas

Would not let you be centred,
Or go, or stay

Wherever you want,
Wherever you have to go.

To open up,
To remain in silence.

Your inner chamber
Is a place of poverty.

from Art Poètique (pp.60,61)

As Russell Smith writes regarding Beckett, “the wordlessness of the late theatre works, seem to enact a philosophy of linguistic nihilism, a repudiation not only of literary conventions but of language itself, a reaching towards the silence which would be its only true expression”[6] or, as Beckett himself puts it in Texts for Nothing X:

No, no souls, or bodies, or birth, or life or death, you've got to go on without any of that junk that's all dead with words, with excess of words, they can say nothing else, they say there is nothing else.

So once you’ve got rid of all the words or as many words as you can, what then? What is the point to all this silence?

Du silence

Je fore,
Je creuse.

Je fore
dans le silence

Ou plutôt
Dans du silence,

Celui qu'en moi
Je fais.

Et je fore, je creuse
Vers plus de silence,

Vers le grand,
Le total silence en ma vie

Où le monde, je l'espère,
Me révélera quelque chose de lui.

Silence

I drill,
I dig.

I drill
in the silence

or rather
in the silence

that is
within me.

And I drill, I dig
to more silence,

to the vast,
the total silence of my life

where its world, I hope,
will reveal something of myself.

Possibles futures, p.165 (translation, me)

He uses similar terminology in another poem which opens:

S'il n'y avait
Qu a creuser dans le noir,

S'il n'y avait
Qu'à perforer

Pour arriver
Où la lumière elle-même.

where he talks about digging through the dark to get to the light, to literally perforate darkness. In his thesis on Guillevic Jaroslav Havir talks about this poem:

The two conditional phrases that open the text as an implied question that becomes a statement – "What if it were only a matter of digging and drilling?" "Creuser" and "perforer" suggest not only material work, but imply that strong obstacles and resistance have to be broken through by writing. Writing becomes a working through, a negative operation of breaking up of standing discourse – "effraction"[7]– to reach another discourse of revelation.[8]

Geometries_CoverAnd yet in a poem from his second collection, Exécutoire (Geometries), Guillevic realises:

To see inside walls
Is not given us.
Break them as we will
Still they remain surface.

Is this not the problem with all poetry that no matter how far you dig (into yourself, if you’re the poet, or into the poem if you’re its reader) no poem ever completely reveals itself?

Although [Guillevic] has spoken of poetic creativity in terms of ‘jaillissement’[gushing], he also states that his poems are always thoroughly written and rewritten possibly many times over.[9]

This is clear when you start looking at translating one of these poems. On one level they are indeed the most straightforward of poems with very few words and mostly simple ones at that but John Montague discovered that he had his work cut out when he settled down to translate Carnac. He began his task with an “excess of enthusiasm”[10] but found out, much as I did when I took on what I thought was a straightforward poem about trickling sand from one hand to the other, just how hard it can be to deal with simple, direct language. It took “twenty years to bring this translation to heel.”[11]

Beckett’s French poetry has also proven to be a nightmare to translate. Some, thankfully, he did himself but there were many he chose to leave and let the rest of us struggle with. Here, for example, is a tiny offering, Google’s shot and my humble effort at translation:

écoute-les
s’ajouter
les mots
aux mots
sans mots
les pas
aux pas
un à
un

listen to the
add
words
the words
no words
not the
not to
one
a

listen

add words
to words
without words

not-one
to one
to not

I could be—and probably am—way off here. But it sounds like something Beckett would have said, a progression from nothing to something and then back to a different kind of nothing. A recent attempt to translate one containing just seven words –

Beckettrêve
sans fin
ni trêve
à rien

dream
without cease
nor ever
peace

from Mirlitonnades[12]

– spurred weeks of readers' attempts in the letters page of the Times Literary Supplement. Roger O'Keefe, for instance, rendered it:

dream
without cease
or treaty
of peace

What James Sallis writes about Guillevic can equally be applied to Beckett:

What is at the very heart of his work’s excellence—the simplicity of its diction, the unadorned language, its very modesty—renders it all but untranslatable. Even in French, Guillevic can be an elusive read. Slight, elliptical, gnomic, the poems vanish when looked at straight on. "Les mots / C’est pour savoir," he says. Words are for knowing. And by les mots he means, resolutely, French words. Because their mystery, their magic, is in the language itself, these poems do not easily give up their secrets, or travel well. They are their secrets. They crack open the dull rock of French and find crystal within. In English, all too often, only the dullness, the flatness, remains.[13]

Beckett’s last poem is well known. It opens:

folly –
folly for to –
for to –
what is the word –
folly from this –
all this –
folly from all this –
given –
folly given all this –
seeing –
folly seeing all this –
this –
what is the word –

from ‘What Is The Word’ (Beckett’s own translation of ‘Comment Dire’)

Some have wondered why he chose to translate folie as folly. It seemed obvious to me and yet on investigation it turns out that the common translation of folie into English is actually ‘madness’. My own thought is that he is using ‘folly’ to suggest both foolishness and also to make us think about an actual folly, a whimsical or extravagant structure built to serve as a conversation piece. He specifically mentions a folly in his play That Time:

A — Foley was it Foley’s Folly bit of a tower still standing all the rest rubble and nettles where did you sleep no friend all the homes gone was it that kip on the front where you no she was with you then still with you then just the one night in any case off the ferry one morning and back on her the next to look was the ruin still there where none ever came where you hid as a child slip off when no one was looking and hide there all day long on a stone among the nettles with your picture-book

Early drafts—Beckett also reworked his texts mercilessly—include many biographical reminiscence, some of which still make their way into the final version. Eoin O'Brien has written a marvellous book entitled The Beckett Country in which he’s provided photographs to go with all of Beckett’s writing. It was an immense undertaking and he was lucky that Beckett was feeling helpful because he wasn’t always. O'Brien had tracked down what he thought the place was Taylor’s Tower but that was not it:

Sam pored over the photographs, fascinated by the beauty of the place, but then, to my disappointment, informed me that he had never been there. Instead he directed me to Barrington's Tower, which, of course made much more sense in that it was close to Cooldrinagh, where he had been sent "supperless to bed" in punishment for his childhood peregrinations. When I asked him why he had changed the name, he said: "Eoin, there's no music in Barrington's Tower."[14]

Compare this now with Guillevic’s poem:

All this quivering
You feel within you,
Around you:

Collect it,
Assemble it,
Before it gets lost,

Make of it
Something like a sculpture
That will challenge time.

from Art Poètique (p.125)

A sculpture, a monument, a folly—it all feels about the same to me. A sculpture does not need words. It stands at a distance from them. The adjective ‘sculptural’ is one has been used when talking about how actors approach their parts in Beckett’s plays and I’m not just thinking of the part of the living sculpture in Catastrophe. Here Jonathan Kalb talks about the problems the actress Hildegard Schmahl had with the part of May in Footfalls:

banshee[T]he actress struggled to fulfil the author's wishes, to imitate the cold conspiratorial quality of his monotone line-readings while going through the motions of pacing in the slumped, infolded posture he demonstrated, "I can't do it mechanically," she would say. "I must understand it first and then think." But her vocal deliveries remained scattered, unconvincing, and laden with superfluous 'colour.'. . . Schmahl ultimately succeeded by means of a radical self-denial . . . for she eventually came to adopt the author's view of her task as primarily sculptural.[15]

The renown Beckett scholar Stanley Gontarski has also commented on the “iconic, sculptural qualities of his works from Play onward.”[16] The wordless TV play Quad has also been described as “something akin to visual sculpture”.[17]

Beckett made veritable pilgrimages to further his knowledge of thirteenth- to sixteenth-century German sculpture.

[…]

Beckett’s stay in Bamberg … was dominated by sculptural study. He went to Kaiserdom, with its astonishing array of sculptural decoration on four separate occasions.[18]

In a piece of satire in The Onion they talk about a supposedly newly discovered Beckett play:

The 23 blank pages, which literary experts presume is a two-act play composed sometime between 1973 and 1975, are already being heralded as one of the most ambitious works by the Nobel Prize-winning author of Waiting For Godot, and a natural progression from his earlier works, including 1969's Breath, a 30-second play with no characters, and 1972's Not I, in which the only illuminated part of the stage is a floating mouth.[19]

It’s a funny article and worth a read but its point is a valid one. It’s what Beckett seemed to be working towards. And, again, Guillevic expresses a similar thought in Art Poètique:

I would like
To speak silence.

Silence
Speaks of the centre.

They are
What I need.

from Art Poètique (p.159)

Silence is not nothingness. That may seem an obvious thing to say but it is an important one. I am silent for much of the day but rarely am I doing nothing. My wife, and I imagine this applies to most wives, has a far greater need to initiate conversation than I do. When I think of most of our conversations I tend to play black if I can use chess as a metaphor; I respond—happily I should report (my wife is an interesting person)—but I don’t have as strong a need to vocalise as she does; I verbalise constantly (in my head) but I’m really not that fond of the sound of my own voice. And so it is true to say that all my writing comes as a natural result of bouts of prolonged silence. As Shalom Freedman puts it:

I waited for the Silence
Only then could I hear my own poem –
The Silence came and I began to write

from ‘I Waited for the Silence’

I found this comment by Erik Nakjavani, talking about Guillevic, thought-provoking:

Without silence, there would be nothing but sounds; therefore, no discernible utterance and therefore no language.  So one can categorically state: Without the invisible, there would be no visibility, and without silence, there would be no language.  Our desire to return to this original moment of silence and the invisible in creative activities intimates a profound and authentic nostalgia for the pre-historic, even pre-lingual world.  Perhaps atavistic nostalgia gives us an experience however elementary of the primal silence and invisible that is the background of Guillevic’s concept of “living in poetry.”[20]

Also this from Louise Glück:

I love white space, love the telling omission, love lacunae, and find oddly depressing that which seems to have left nothing out.[21]

WS MerwinOkay I would never go so far as to suggest that silence is poetry but what cannot be denied is that the best poetry is dripping with silences and lying in a pool of silence. As W. S. Merwin writes:

To the Margin

Following the black
footprints the tracks
of words that have passed that way
before me I come
again and again to
your blank shore

not the end yet
but there is nothing more
to be seen there
to be read to be followed
to be understood
and each time I turn
back to go on
in the same way
that I draw the next breath

the wider you are
the emptier and the more
innocent of any
signal the more
precious the text
feels to me as I make
my way through it reminding
myself listening
for any sound from you

(as published in the 18/25 July 2005 issue of The Nation, p. 40)

Ironically Beckett’s white space is usually black. I suspect it’s a matter of practicality. Darkness is so much easier to manage on a stage but I wonder if he would have preferred his plays to be performed in an oasis that faded into whiteness. Here’s a perfect example from Ohio Impromptu:

Ohio Impromptu

He’s not here to ask but the importance of the black and white divide in his late plays has often been commented on, “not just a normal theatrical blackout, but a darkness of a different order.”[22]

Xerxes Mehta points out that Beckett’s darkness “is a part of the weave of his work, the most important single element of the image” […] “It should be as absolute as can be managed. Darkness at this level becomes a form of sense deprivation.”[23]

Deprivation, poverty, absence: it’s all the same thing. All that we have been provided with—our rations, if you like—are either the words on the page or the action in the spotlight. Black is not that far removed from white though. As Guillevic notes:

I know the strange
Variety of black
Which is called light.

from Sphere (p.108)

In the monochrome paintings of Japan called Sumi-e (or Suibokuga) the empty space, of the undrawn white of the paper is referred to as Yohaku. “Blank space is not simply unpainted areas; it is important to the composition of a painting and carries the same "weight" as the painted areas, often serving to set off or balance the painted motifs. … [I]n their paintings blank space functioned as ‘spirit’.”[24] The philosophy underlying this school of art is an interesting one. As Wikipedia puts it:

The goal of ink and wash painting is not simply to reproduce the appearance of the subject, but to capture its soul. To paint a horse, the ink wash painting artist must understand its temperament better than its muscles and bones. To paint a flower, there is no need to perfectly match its petals and colours, but it is essential to convey its liveliness and fragrance. East Asian ink wash painting may be regarded as an earliest form of expressionistic art that captures the unseen.[25]

Seems like a pretty decent definition of what poets aim to do with words, don’t you think? The blank page, the empty stage—that is where it all begins:

what would I do without this silence where the murmurs die
the pantings the frenzies towards succour towards love
without this sky that soars
above its ballast dust

what would I do what I did yesterday and the day before
peering out of my deadlight looking for another
wandering like me eddying far from all the living
in a convulsive space
among the voices voiceless
that throng my hiddenness

from ‘What Would I Do’ (Beckett’s own translation of que ferais-je sans ce monde )

In a 1969 interview Beckett said, "Writing becomes not easier, but more difficult for me. Every word is like an unnecessary stain on silence and nothingness. Democritus pointed the way: 'Naught is more than nothing.'"[26] Beckett obviously liked the expression because, according to Deirdre Bair he used it on a number of occasions, with her and others; in fact these are the final words in her 1978 biography of him:

I couldn’t have done it otherwise, gone on I mean. I could not have gone on through the awful wretched mess of life without having left a stain upon the silence.[27]

And everyone knows the famous end to The Unnamable­—“I can't go on, I'll go on.”—but this is the bit before it:

. . . it will be I, you must go on, I can't go on, you must go on, I'll go on, you must say words, as long as there are any, until they find me, until they say me, strange pain, strange sin, you must go on, perhaps it's done already, perhaps they have said me already, perhaps they have carried me to the threshold of my story, before the door that opens on my story, that would surprise me, if it opens, it will be I, it will be the silence, where I am, I don't know, I'll never know, in the silence you don't know, you must go on, I can't go on, I'll go on. (italics mine)

Mahood gabbles on as does Mouth in Not I and Winnie in Happy Days scrambling to find words. Winnie's entire raison d'être is to speak; words flow from her in an endless stream—"if only I could bear to be alone, I mean prattle away with not a soul to hear"—and that brings me back to Guillevic’s jaillissement. Words babble forth.

So where is silence located? In her introduction to her translation of Art Poètique Maureen Smith writes:

[Guillevic] created his own world which he refers to as a “domain”, a “kingdom” or a “sphere”, the place where something new is expected to come into existence, and in which he searches for a language of concreteness and clarity. […] In this domain, the search for language entails an experience of fullness and void, darkness and light, silence and singing. Sensitive, like his contemporary the painter Camille Bryen, to the existence of void and fullness, Guillevic recognises their presence “even in silence.” (Inclus, 132) It is this void that allows entry, allows the perception of the murmur at the heart of the void (Inclus, 135).

findepartida_01_pThis description brings to mind Beckett’s “skullscapes”. The word was not coined by Beckett himself[28] but I suspect he would have liked it. At the beginning of Murphy he, for example, describes Murphy’s mind as “a large hollow sphere, hermetically closed to the universe without.” An even more graphic description appears in his first short story, ‘Assumption’, where the protagonist retreats from speech into “a flesh-locked sea of silence”. Molloy talks about his “ivory dungeon” and this view is echoed by Malone and Mahood in the second and third parts of the trilogy.

Beckett’s skullskapes are not without windows though. The set for Endgamehas often been described as a skull with eye sockets and then we have the woman in Rockaby sitting at her upstairs window, searching the windows opposite to see another “one living soul” like herself.[29] Guillevic has written similar:

—What are you waiting for,
Standing at the window?
You seem all intent
On something outside.

—I'm not waiting for anything.
I'm not observing anything.
I see without looking.

—But I know that you are waiting.
Waiting for something,
Waiting to be invaded
By the now.

from The Sea & Other Poems (translated by Patricia Terry)

Waiting; one of the major themes of Beckett’s oeuvre. And waiting is so often done in silence. Maybe not at first. At first we do stuff to distract ourselves but in time the distractions bore us and we settle in. And it’s then, free of distraction, that we are prepared. Waiting is never doing nothing: it is anticipating. It is ready. For “the now”.

Silence is clearly important to a great many writers, not just Beckett (who one might think had some kind of monopoly on it) and Guillevic. William S. Burroughs said, “Silence is only frightening to people who are compulsively verbalising,”[30]Thomas Carlyle said, “Under all speech that is good for anything there lies a silence that is better”[31] and Marshall McLuhan said, “Darkness is to space what silence is to sound, i.e., the interval”[32] but I think Alice Walker really hits the nail on the head with this quote which I’ll leave you with:

Everything does come out of silence. And once you get that, it’s wonderful to be able to go there and live in silence until you’re ready to leave it. I’ve written and published seven novels and many, many, many stories and essays. And each and every one came out of basically nothing–that’s how we think of silence, as not having anything. But I have experienced silence as being incredibly rich.[33] (italics mine)

P.S. After finishing this I discovered an English translation of that tiny Beckett poem. And I was way off:

listen to them
accumulate
word
after word
without a word
step
by step
one by
one




REFERENCES


[1] Rolf Breuer, ‘Flann O’Brien and Samuel Beckett’, Irish University Review, Vol. 37, No. 2, p. 340

[2] James Sallis, Carnac and Living in Poetry, Boston Review February/March 1999

[3] Stella Harvey, Myth and the Sacred in the Poetry of Guillevic, p.2

[4] Stephen Mitchelmore, ‘Beckett’s Silences’, This Space, 16 February 2011

[5] Stephen Mitchelmore, ‘Beckett’s Silences’, This Space, 16 February 2011

[6] Russell Smith, ‘Beckett, Negativity and Cultural Value’

[7] A legal term meaning breaking into a house, store, etc., by force; forcible entry. From the French which literally means a breaking open.

[8] Jaroslav Havir, The poetry of Guillevic : discourses of alienation, the erotic and ecology in Requiem, Terraqué, Carnac, Du Domaine and Maintenant, p.287

[9] Stella Harvey, Myth and the Sacred in the Poetry of Guillevic, p.3

[10] James Sallis, Carnac and Living in Poetry, Boston Review February/March 1999

[11] James Sallis, Carnac and Living in Poetry, Boston Review February/March 1999

[12] Samuel Beckett, Collected Poems, p.87

[13] James Sallis, Carnac and Living in Poetry, Boston Review February/March 1999

[14] Eoin O'Brien, The Beckett Country, p.220

[15] Jonathon Kalb, Beckett in Performance, p 63-64

[16] S.E. Gontarski ,‘Staging Himself, Or Beckett’s Late Style in the Theatre’, Samuel Beckett Today / Aujourd'hui, 6, p95

[17] David Pattie, The Complete Critical Guide to Samuel Beckett, p.94

[18] Mark Nixon, ‘Beckett and the Visual Arts’, Samuel Beckett's German Diaries 1936-1937, pp.149,152

[19]‘Scholars Discover 23 Blank Pages That May As Well Be Lost Samuel Beckett Play’. The Onion, 26th April, 2006

[20] Erik Nakjavani, ‘Homage to Guillevic: The Poet of Atavistic Nostalgia for the Primeval’, PSYART: A Hyperlink Journal for the Psychological Study of the Arts, December 15, 2009

[21] Quoted in David Godkin, Louise Glück: American Poetry's "Silent Soldier", Speaking of Poems, 15th April, 2012

[22] Junko Matoba, ‘Religious Overtones in the Darkened Area of Beckett’s Later Short Plays’, Samuel Beckett Today / Aujourd'hui, 9, p31

[23] Junko Matoba, ‘Religious Overtones in the Darkened Area of Beckett’s Later Short Plays’, Samuel Beckett Today / Aujourd'hui, 9, p31

[24] Japanese Architecture and Art users system: yohaku

[25] Wikipedia, Ink wash painting, Philosophy

[26] Charles A. Carpenter, Modern British, Irish, and American Drama: A Descriptive Chronology, 1865-1965 quoted in Samuel Beckett, 1906-1989: A Descriptive Chronology of His Plays, Theatrical Career, and Dramatic Theories excerpted with additions and other modifications

[27] Deidre Bair, Samuel Beckett, p.681

[28] The designation "skullscape" is Linda Ben Zvi's, from the recorded discussion that followed the production of Embers for the Beckett Festival of Radio Plays, recorded at the BBC Studios, London on January 1988.

[29] The composer Charles Dodge, met with Beckett in Paris to discuss preparing a performance version of Cascando. Beckett used the occasion to gush about a new apartment he had just taken. He was particularly excited because its window overlooked the yard of an adjacent prison. Charles asked what Beckett could see out his window. Beckett replied: "A face, sometimes part of one." – Schell, M., Beckett, Openness and Experimental Cinema, 1990/1998

[30] William S. Burroughs, The Job, pp.39,40

[31] Thomas Carlyle, The Works of Thomas Carlyle, p.27

[32] Marshall McLuhan, Toward a Spatial Dialogue, ch. 16,‘Through the Vanishing Point’

[33] Valerie Reiss, ‘Alice Walker calls God “Mama”’, beliefnet.com, February 2007

The value of privacy (part one)

$
0
0

some_privacy_please
Writing is a private thing. It's boring to watch, and its pleasures tend to be most intense for the person who's actually doing the writing. - Audrey Niffenegger



Etymology is a fascinating subject. Whenever I look up a new word I virtually always have a glance at where the word originated. Take ‘privacy’ for example. My Dad grew privet hedges in his front and back garden and all my life I assumed that they were there to ensure the family’s privacy and that there must be a correlation between the words ‘privet’ and ‘private’.
Privacy (from Latin: privatus"separated from the rest, deprived of something, esp. office, participation in the government", from privo"to deprive").
‘Private’ occupies twelve columns of the Oxford English Dictionary, not counting its various relatives so the above you will appreciate is a very, very limited definition.

The term ‘privet’ tends to be used these days for all members of the genus Ligustrummy father’s hedge was a ligustrum japonicum, for example—however, according to Wikipedia, some forensic ligua-horticuluralists posit that the common name for privet actually originates from the Russian for ‘hello’ (Привет) since the plant is often found to the side of unpaved roads. That said there is a Latin connection, too, since the generic name was applied by Pliny the Elder to Ligustrum vulgare and that was a while ago. The bottom line is that no one knows anymore why privets are called privets.

I find it interesting that the word ‘privacy’ derives from a word that means ‘to deprive’ because I’ve always considered deprivation as an undesirable thing. As long as anyone has their basic needs satisfied—and by that I don’t just mean starvation rations—they are warm, protected from the elements, have company and a place to sleep—we all know Maslow’s chart—you couldn't really say that they were being deprived. They might have been used to living in the lap of luxury but what they have become used to and what they need to be comfortable are two different things.

I value my privacy. The implication is that my insisting on it is detrimental in some way to others. I am depriving them of me but let’s face it if you had no me in your lives—let’s say I dropped dead tomorrow—you wouldn’t waste away for the lack of me. My wife, the one person on this earth who is privy to just about everything I do, might (I hope) go through a bit of a rough patch but she’s a tough old bird and she’d pull through; life toddles on. Although we live in each other’s pockets, Carrie and I both recognise the other’s need for privacy.

In actuality the Greeks viewed it a little differently:
Hannah Arendt… in her book The Human Condition has suggested that what we take to be the private realm was thought of in classical Greek times to be the realm of “privation” or deprivation—a realm in which persons saw to their material dependencies, like sustenance, and not to their creative and rational, or specific human aspects [which] could emerge only in political activities performed in the public realm.[1]
No one would bat an eye being seen eating publicly now although a few of us might be embarrassed if our efforts at food preparation were televised for all to see. I’m reminded of a science fiction short story about the problems faced in a first contact situation because the alien race is revolted by the fact the humans insist on eating as a group and are equally puzzled when the humans object when they start copulating in front of them.

It’s odd when you look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs—friendship, family and sexual relations are all there on Level III but nowhere do I see privacy mentioned. The fact is his chart is an over-simplification of what people need. Maslow himself identified the following 15 characteristics of a self-actualised person (self-actualisation is the highest Level):
  1. They perceive reality efficiently and can tolerate uncertainty;
  2. Accept themselves and others for what they are;
  3. Spontaneous in thought and action;
  4. Problem-centred (not self-centred);
  5. Unusual sense of humour;
  6. Able to look at life objectively;
  7. Highly creative;
  8. Resistant to enculturation, but not purposely unconventional;
  9. Concerned for the welfare of humanity;
  10. Capable of deep appreciation of basic life-experience;
  11. Establish deep satisfying interpersonal relationships with a few people;
  12. Peak experiences;
  13. Need for privacy;
  14. Democratic attitudes;
  15. Strong moral/ethical standards.
Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svgNeedless to say there has been much debate about which items should and should not be on this list. You don’t need to tick all fifteen boxes to be self-actualised for starters. Self-actualisation is a matter of degree. As Maslow himself said: “There are no perfect human beings.”[2]

I tend to think of myself as a very private person. I think a great many writers would say that. Is being a private person the same as being a solitudinous person though? I don’t think it necessarily has to be. It can but it’s not compulsory. I’m actually not that crazy about being on my own for too long. I like it that my wife sits a few feet away from me. She does her thing and I do mine and rarely, if ever, do either of us ask what the other is doing. If one of us cares to share what we’re reading or working on that’s another matter and we do occasionally. But mostly we sit here, listen to music and do what we have to do. When I have work for her to read or edit I attach it to an e-mail and send it off to her usually mentioning (because I don’t trust e-mails) that I’ve sent her something and to look out for it. The exception is poetry. I generally pass her a printed sheet with a poem on it and stand there expectantly.

I see a lot of writers online who seem to find sharing beneficial or even if they don’t find it especially beneficial they see it as the norm to tell people what they’re working on and how many words they’ve written that day. They update their Facebook profiles and a few of their friends leave encouraging remarks or click ‘like’. This, of course, is especially evident when it’s NaNoWriMo month when it’s all people talk about which makes my life easy because I just don’t read any of their blog posts for a month. It’s not that I’m not interested… No, I’m lying, I’m not interested. I don’t see that my interest should be a consideration. No one needs me to be interested in their writing. Wouldn’t it be horrible if no one wrote any books because their friends weren’t interested? Actually I think that might not be a bad thing. There are a lot of books written during the month of November that really should never have seen the light of day. I’m not anti-NaNoWriMo. It’s just not for me. I’m not that kind of writer. I understand that jobbing writers have to be able to sit down and write come hail, rain or shine and all credit to them but, with the exception of this blog (which shows I’m perfectly capable of churning out decent writing on a regular basis over an extended period of time), that’s not me.

Writing, for me, is a private thing. I’m not interested in sharing it with others. I’m happy to share my written words with others, the product of my writing, but the writing process is all mine. And it’s private. There was a documentary on SkyArts on May 22nd called Close Up – Photographer at Work and one of the photographers featured was Jay Maisel who had this to say about his art:
The product is a by-product; the act of seeing is the moment of fun.
Fun is not a word that I use very often. I have fun—Origin:1675–85; dialectal variant of obsolete fon to befool—but for some reason it’s not a word that I leap to use to describe the things that give me pleasure. I’m not saying that writing’s not ‘fun’—and, yes, of course, sometimes it’s anything but fun—but even when it’s not fun there is a kind of pleasure that can be derived from wrestling with words. I’m having ‘fun’ now. I don’t look as if I am but, trust me, I am. But it’s a selfish kind of fun. And it’s not for sharing.

93

I’m not big on process. My wife is. I showed here a photo yesterday and her first question —not unreasonably—was: “Was that Photoshopped?” It probably was. I, personally, didn’t care. It was a cool image and I really didn’t much care to what lengths the photographer went to achieve the result; only the end result mattered. And I suspect most people are the same when it comes to what they read; they really don’t care how long it took an author to produce said work of fiction, how many mugs of coffee they drank, shots of whisky they threw back, tears they shed or reams of paper they screwed up and tossed at a wastepaper bin that really would have worked much better if it was sitting next to their desk and not on the other side of the damn room. All our readers are interested in is the final product once it has been edited, proofread and printed in a format that’s to their liking. I, likewise, don’t much care where they read my books, be they on trains, toilets, in baths, beds, cars (hopefully not driving), or sprawled across sofas listening to Brian Eno. That’s their business and it’s private.

I don’t believe that telling people what I’m doing will jinx the project. I don’t have time for anything like that. A book, for me at least, is a fluid thing and most of the time what I’m working with or thinking about is a mess and, to be honest, I’m a little embarrassed about how much of a mess. Once it’s been tidied up I’m perfectly happy to let you wander round but as I know you’re going to judge me—and don’t pretend for one second that you won’t because we all do—I only want to be seen at my best.

You talk about men and women practicing law. No one ever talks about people practicing writing and yet that’s what we do with every sentence. Yes, I know, we put into practice the things we’ve learned about grammar and spelling and sentence construction and all that malarkey but that’s not what I mean. I mean we practice writing a sentence. We write a sentence, read it back, fiddle with it, reread it, tweak it a bit more, decide it’ll do, move onto the next one and then see how it looks a few minutes/hours/days later when you come to edit the paragraph in which it finds itself. I don’t really want to share the sentences I’ve got wrong. I want people to imagine that I wrote the book from beginning to end without changing a word.

That doesn’t mean I’m not willing to talk about the writing process after the event for the sake of sharing my experiences with fellow writers to help them realise that the hell they’re going through for the sake of their writing isn’t all that unusual, and none of us, not one us, rattles off books like they do on the telly. I consider it is a duty incumbent on all authors to divulge our practices, to let newbies peek behind the curtain but that’s, as I said, after the event. If I can remember, because they tell me that mothers don’t usually remember much about the experience of childbirth—just a general awareness that it was painful and drawn out—and I think writing’s like that, too, which is why, a wee while after finishing one book, we find ourselves fooling around with a new one. I ‘remember’—and ‘remember’ is in inverted commas for a reason—I ‘remember’ going through bouts of absolute despair writing certainly the last three books and regretting bitterly not quitting at two but, you see, I don’t remember the despair just that there was despair. I knew (or at least I believed) that, like depression, it would lift but whilst in the midst of it I just wanted to be left alone to endure it.

Apparently the Japanese have no word for ‘privacy’. They don’t get it as a concept. I find that odd because, if you’d asked me, I would have said that, as a nation, the Japanese would be amongst the most private in the world. Decorum, honour, things being done properly all smack of a nation of buttoned-up people not that dissimilar from the reserved, stiff-upper-lipped British. The Swedes have a close equivalent for ‘private’ (privat) but nothing for ‘privacy’. Google Translate says it’s ‘integritet’ which it translates back as ‘integrity’. I suppose I can see the connection.

The problem with privacy is that it’s often interpreted as secrecy: Wot’s ‘e ‘idin’? Secrets are not automatically bad or horrible things although there is an assumption that they are; guilt is assumed; people don’t have secrets, they have guilty secrets. If we’re not opening up, sharing with the group and providing full disclosure then we’re at it; we’re on the fiddle. I’ll be honest, most of the times when I’ve badgered—yes, badgered—others into fessing up this or that I’ve usually been pretty underwhelmed by their confessions; most of us live unexciting lives and yet we all have things we want to hide. Generally these are things that if they get out we feel they’ll embarrass us or cause people see us in a less than favourable light. It doesn’t seem to matter that others will have a similar assortments of faux pas that they’d rather keep to themselves. We fear a loss of dignity which is another one of those words we all use and yet struggle to define. Which brings us round to another word: entitlement, a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation.

facebook-privacyAlthough there are those who might like to suggest otherwise—e.g. Mark Zuckerberg—people’s need for privacy is not dead, not dying, not even poorly. We share differently to the ways we used to but people have always shared or withheld sharing if they don’t see the need for or the benefit of sharing. Most of the things I share on Facebook I do to keep up the impression that I’m sharing, that I’m playing the game, being a good sport, joining in. Occasionally—very, very occasionally—I do come across something that I really want to pass on—my post on my experiences with aspartame is a good example—but they’re few and far between.

When you get a new job you sign a contract which sets out what your boss’s expectations are and what your entitlements are. A marriage certificate is generally much briefer and so the entitlements are a bit vaguer. But what about friends? There will be a number of people reading this who are my friends. What does that entitle you to? Zuckerberg makes the mistake of assuming that all friends are equal but that’s not the case. I personally think the term ‘efriend’ should be used more. But even there I have efriends who I only communicate with via Facebook, those who I exchange comments with on our respective blogs, those who I email and those (okay just the one so far) who I talk to on the phone and all of these are modes of electronic communication. For the most part I still guard my privacy.
In Part Two, a brief history of privacy.


Further Reading



References

[1] Ferdinand Schoeman, ‘Privacy: philosophical dimension of the literature’ in F. Schoeman ed. Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy: An Anthology, p.10
[2] A H Maslow, Motivation and Personality, p.176

The value of privacy (part two)

$
0
0

ad_privacy
Computers didn't kill privacy.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg didn't kill privacy.
So who killed privacy? We all did, of course. Accidentally, perhaps.
Or maybe, like the fairies in Peter Pan, privacy only lived as long as we continued to believe in it.
Simon Chesterman– Dean of the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law
(Part One)

The notion of privacy is not a modern one. It dates back to earliest times. The reasons we choose to limit our contact with others have expanded from preferring to defecate or copulate away from prying eyes to refusing to disclose irrelevant details about ourselves on applications forms that only a few years ago potential employers considered it their right to ask for. But then again everything’s more complex these days. Take pockets. Nowadays no one thinks of pockets as anything significant but once they were. Once the only way you could really keep anything private was by keeping it on your person:
In the 1700’s, people would see symbolic and associated meanings in objects that the modern person finds completely neutral. For example, putting a letter into one’s pocket was at the time a very intimate gesture, which was a way of feeling and showing great affection. Since pockets were so close to the body—on the skin, actually, since underwear was not common—they usually caught the scent of their owner. Furthermore, reaching for a woman’s pocket meant that the hand was to be put under the slits of the skirt and close to her pelvic area. Therefore accessing them was thought very intimate, even when performed by the woman herself. – Pockets and (female) privacy: the 18th century compared with today, I Am No Pickpocket
The problems people’s desire for privacy cause are nothing new. In eighteenth-century England privacy wasn’t merely thought of as a problem but as an actual threat. Women reading alone and people hiding their true thoughts from one another in conversation generated fears of uncontrollable fantasies and profound anxieties about insincerity. People hid behind common rules of etiquette to mask their innermost feelings. There was no TV: gossip was a major source of entertainment and without privacy to invade where would be the fun in that?

Times change. With the establishment of a national postal service in the late 18th century, photography’s ability to capture intimate moments and the growth of the tabloid newspaper industry—whose raison d'être is to make private things public—the establishment began to crumble. Secrets were no longer safe in pockets or lockets or even behind closed doors.

Privacy regulation in Continental Europe is derived from 17th and 18th century laws of honour and insult which is where we find a marked difference between how privacy laws were drawn up in the States as opposed to Europe. ‘The Right to Privacy’[1] which was written in 1890 and is regarded as probably the most influential law-review article ever written, was produced as a direct response to what its authors regarded as an unprecedented assault against privacy by the news media. Prior to this a considerable body of Anglo-American law protected confidentiality, which safeguards the information people share with others. Privacy and confidentiality are not the same thing[2] although, of course, they are related. Here, though, we notice the difference between how Americans at that time viewed privacy compared to their Continental cousins: when an American was looking for a bit of me time what they were in fact saying was “leave me alone,” whereas, in Europe, an individual seeking some privacy was actually demanding people’s “respect”; the difference between liberty on the one hand and dignity on the other. Neither, of course, fully encompasses the concept of privacy.

universal-declaration-of-human-rightsIt’s noteworthy that only a hundred years earlier when the US Bill of Rights was drafted the only mention of anything like privacy was in the Fourth Amendment which explicitly affirms 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures'. Anything other than that wasn’t obviously thought to be worth legislating against. It wasn’t until the UN Charter of 1948 that the word ‘privacy’ started to get the kind of attention it deserves with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. – Article 12
The question is: what exactly does ‘privacy’ mean in this context? It’s only after this that academics really started to take an interest in coming up with a universal definition of privacy. Prior to that it was mainly of interest to novelists and philosophers.

In 1967 Alan Westin identified four types of privacy. He was actually a Professor of Public Law and not a psychologist as I’d expected when I first started researching this subject. Why would lawyers be interested in privacy? I thought. I can be terribly naïve. Anyway in his book Privacy and Freedomhe defined these four types:
  1. solitude: the state of being free from observation of others
  2. intimacy: the state of being with another person but free from the outside world
  3. anonymity: the state of being unknown even in a crowd
  4. reserve: the state in which a person employs psychological barriers to control unwanted intrusion
By 1970 N.J. Marshall had proposed two additional categories in addition to Westin’s original four: Not Neighbouring (combining negative attitudes towards neighbours and little or no involvement with neighbours) and Seclusion which dealt with the visual and auditory seclusion provided by the home and a tolerance for being alone. (Can’t find much about her online.)

In 1975 Irwin Altman, an environmental psychologist, put forward his privacy regulation theory to account for the fact that people’s need for privacy and their levels of privacy varied and should vary:
According to Altman, if we effectively control the openness and closedness of self to others (i.e., make ourselves more or less available to others) in response to our desire and the environment, we can function better in society than those who cannot. In order to regulate our privacy (i.e., social interaction) successfully, we need to use a variety of behavioural mechanisms such as verbal, paraverbal and non-verbal behaviour, environmental mechanisms of territoriality and personal space, etc. By combining these behavioural mechanisms (i.e., techniques), we can effectively express our desired privacy level to others in order to achieve the optimum level of privacy. – Wikipedia
And in 1979 psychologist Darhl Pedersen looked again at the various classifications of privacy, expanding Westin’s original four to six types by adding one and splitting one:
b1. intimacy with family
b2. intimacy with friends
e. isolation (as a way of life to differentiate it from temporary solitude)
I personally think that intimacy should be split between social and sexual especially these days when people have friends with benefits.

In turn Pedersen identified several privacy function factors—reasons why people sought privacy—and noted that there was both commonality and uniqueness of the factors across the six kinds of privacy. Westin had proposed four factors: personal autonomy, emotional release, self-evaluation and limited and protected communication. Pedersen’s alternatives were contemplation, autonomy, rejuvenation, confiding, creativity, disapproved consumptions, recovery, catharsis, and concealment. Others have offered slightly different breakdowns.

In their book, The Private Me, published in 1980, June and William Noble noted a shift in the perception of privacy amongst Generation Me, a general devaluation of the need for privacy:
Among examples of modern devaluations in privacy, Noble and Noble noted that until the late twentieth century, diaries, letters and biographies were regarded as private legacy bequeathed by the deceased to family, and chart the growth of straight autobiography as distinct from the novel as fictionalized autobiography. They deplore compulsive self-disclosure (glamorised as candour) and over-disclosure, not only because it becomes boring, but also because it looks for sympathy as against creating intimacy or developing self-The Private Meawareness. Reticence, on the other hand, encourages limited or protected communication, while privacy keeps emotions and acts from being trivialised: What is important is kept private (for example, lovemaking)...

Noble and Noble emphasized the link between privacy and power: Privacy allows or asserts power, and power confers privacy. Privacy in modern America has become a luxury, indicating status; lack of privacy among the poor and in the workplace leads to stress, and lack of assertiveness means that important boundaries cannot be established. Privacy is resisted by calling it "selfishness"; shyness in modern America is regarded as synonymous with worthlessness but can be seen instead as sensitivity and perceptiveness.[3]
It’s also interesting to note that “most researchers on privacy are located in the United States and focus on contemporary U.S. experience; relatively little has been produced about other modern societies.”[4] I don’t think one needs read too much into that though.

In 1983 a new term appeared on the block: informational self-determination. The term was coined by the German Federal Constitutional Court and it reflects Westin’s broad definition of privacy which was:
The right of the individual to decide what information about himself should be communicated to others and under what circumstances.[5]
The German court went on to say that privacy is not only an important fundamental right but also a precondition to a democratic society.
In 1984 Ruth Gavison, an Israeli Law professor, streamlined her definition of privacy reducing it to three basic elements:[6]
Solitude: control over one’s interpersonal interactions with other people.
Confidentiality: control over other people’s access to information about oneself.
Autonomy: control over what one does, i.e., freedom of will.
Gavison also emphasised the role of control in privacy management, and that genuine control requires both an abundance of options to choose from and the power to ensure that one’s choice is respected by others.
In 1997, in her book In Pursuit of Privacy: Law, Ethics, and the Rise of Technology the philosopher Judith DeCew proposed that privacy is best understood as cluster concept covering interest in control over:
  1. information about oneself,
  2. access to oneself, both physical and mental, and
  3. one's ability to make important decisions about family and lifestyle in order to be self-expressive and to develop varied relationships
These three interests are related because in each of the three contexts threats of information leaks, threats of control over our bodies, and threats to our power to make our own choices about our lifestyles and activities all make us vulnerable and fearful that we are being scrutinized, pressured or taken advantage of by others. Privacy has moral value because it shields us in all three contexts by providing certain freedom and independence — freedom from scrutiny, prejudice, pressure to conform, exploitation, and the judgment of others.[7]
But the matter has still not been resolved. Daniel J. Solove’s 2008 book, Understanding Privacy , attempts to characterise and understand the complex and contradictory modern views and approaches to privacy. He settles on six general principles:
  1. the right to be let alone — Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis’ famous formulation of the right to privacy;
  2. limited access to the self — the ability to shield oneself from unwanted access by others;
  3. secrecy — the concealment of certain matters from others;
  4. control over personal information — the ability to exercise control over information about oneself;
  5. personhood — the protection of one’s personality, individuality, and dignity; and
  6. intimacy — control over, or limited access to, one’s intimate relationships or aspects of life.[8]
I doubt even this can be considered a definitive definition.

Roger ClarkeThings have moved on quite a bit since Westin’s original conception of privacy appeared in print. There was no Internet and nothing like the degree of surveillance that there is today. Words like ‘dataveillance’ never existed—Roger Clarke coined that one in the 1980s—and GPS meant “Got It, Played It, Sent It” as well as seventy-one other things that have nothing to do with tracking people. Technology has changed everyone’s focus. Echelon is a covert global satellite network said to have the ability to intercept all phone, fax, and e-mail messages in the world. That’s scary. I walked down the town yesterday. Christ knows how many security cameras I appeared on. Personally I don’t get too uptight about them and as far as the Internet goes I still retain a high level of control about what people get to know about me. The bottom line is that I don’t have to go online if I don’t choose to and I don’t have to leave the privacy of my flat if I don’t want to. I have that freedom still. When I’m walking outside I’m not being ‘me’ though. Even now I’m not being ‘me’. I’m wearing a social mask, a persona to use Jung’s term (‘persona’ means ‘dramatic character’ or ‘mask’). In Race and CultureRobert Park said:
It is probably no mere historical accident that the word person, in its first meaning, is a mask. It is rather recognition of the fact that everyone is always and everywhere, more or less consciously, playing a role… It is in these roles that we know each other; it is in these roles that we know ourselves.
According to Erving Goffman (who wrote The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life), the persona involves dramatic ways to convey behaviour and particular impressions. Being oneself is attached to a performance, the basic purpose being to manipulate in order to attain a desirable outcome. That’s nothing new. We’ve known that since Shakespeare wrote As You Like It. My friend Vito also tells me that in The Merry Wives of Windsor he also wrote: “Fie! Privacy? Fie!” Make of that what you will but we thought it was interesting. The point I’m making is that if we imagine that privacy has somehow been eroded away in the 21st century then we need to think again. Solitude may be harder to achieve especially in some cities where overcrowding is becoming a problem but, telepaths excepted, no one can read our minds yet and that’s where we set the levels of how private we choose to be.

Conclusion

Privacy is dead, get over it – Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems in 2001
All the above makes thought-provoking reading. Privacy clearly involves far more that merely being left alone in a physical sense. I think my own need for privacy is a functional privacy. Writing, for me, requires complete focus and any outside influence is potentially dangerous. I work in a bubble. I need that bubble to function. One of the questions they always ask you at interview is whether you work better on your own or as a part of a group. I can work as a part of a group but the fact is that even as a part of a group I tend to work on my own within the bounds of that group dynamic; allocate me my duties, give me my timeframe, my budget, the tools to do the job and leave me alone to get on with it.

Privacy is clearly not a simple thing and it looks like a more appropriate expression for how I am is a ‘rather reserved chappie’ as opposed to suggesting that I’m simply a ‘private person’. At least as far as my writing goes. It’s all semantics. Reserve is rooted in Georg Simmel’s concept of “mental distance”: the combination of “reciprocal reserve and indifference” that is exhibited during social interaction to “protect the personality.”[9] There are other times when I do want to physically isolate myself from others and fade into blissful anonymity. I can do that in the real world except where my writer’s world intersects with that real world; thankfully most of my writer’s world is a virtual one or at least a cerebral one.

I see privacy as valuable. I said that at the start of this essay but it was this quote from Charles Fried that helped me make sense of what I was really saying when I said that I valued my privacy:
It is my thesis that privacy is not just one possible means among others to insure some other value, but that it is necessarily related to ends and relations of the most fundamental sort: respect, love, friendship and trust. Privacy is not merely a good technique for furthering these fundamental relations; rather without privacy they are simply inconceivable. They require a context of privacy or the possibility of privacy for their existence.[10]
There are things that I have told my wife that I have told no one else; secrets I have shared. They were private things ergo they became valuable things. I’ve given her a lot of presents over the years, things one could place a monetary value on—flowers, chocolates, jewellery—but personal things have a sentimental value, impossible to quantify. How do you feel when you friend says, “Can I tell you a secret?” It is one way in which we measure our friendships. If nothing was private what would I have to share? And it works the other way too. By not wanting to know everything I’m thinking and doing my wife shows her respect for my privacy and confers value on it. The exchange rate fluctuates but private things are never valueless or worthless. How could they be when every experiences costs us and sometimes dearly?


Further Reading

Bonnie S. McDougall, Concepts of Privacy in English
Leysia Palen and Paul Dourish, Unpacking “Privacy” for a Networked World
There are also a whole host of short articles relating to the legal definition of privacy here.


References

[1] Warren and Brandeis, ‘The Right to Privacy’, Harvard Law Review, Vol. IV, December 15, 1890, No. 5
[2] Kristopher Nelson, Confidentiality vs. privacy, in inpropriapersona.com, Summer 2011
[4] Ibid
[5] Alan Westin, Privacy and Freedom
[6] Ruth Gavison, ‘Privacy and the Limits of Law’, in F. Schoeman ed. Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy: An Anthology, p.346
[7] Judith DeCew, ‘Privacy’, The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition)
[8] Kristopher Nelson, ‘Daniel Solove’s six general types of privacy’, in inpropriapersona.com, Summer 2011
[10] Charles Fried, ‘Privacy (a moral analysis)’ in F. Schoeman ed. Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy: An Anthology, p. 205.

Let the Games Begin

$
0
0

9781921758461_large_cover

There was no plan B. And plan A leaked water all over the place. – Niccolò Ammaniti,Let the Games Begin




For a very Italian novel—l'Unità said that “Let the Games Begin may well be the print version of La Dolce Vita set today”—there was something, for me, oddly British about this book; we readers do bring our own baggage. I grew up with the term ‘French farce’ but look up ‘farce’ in Wikipedia and you’ll actually find more British farces listed than French and those are the ones I remember. Let the Games Begin is an Italian farce—I’ll have more to say about that in a minute—but it reminded me of so many British sitcoms and sex comedies from the sixties and seventies. Wikipedia defines a farce as follows:

In theatre, a farce is a comedy that aims at entertaining the audience through situations that are highly exaggerated, extravagant, and thus improbable. Farces are often highly incomprehensible plot-wise (due to the large number of plot twists and random events that often occur), but viewers are encouraged not to try to follow the plot in order to avoid becoming confused and overwhelmed. Farce is also characterized by physical humour, the use of deliberate absurdity or nonsense, and broadly stylized performances. […] Furthermore, a farce is also often set in one particular location, where all events occur.

That pretty much defines this book, what’s good about it and what’s bad. The blurb on the back of the book states quite plainly:

WARNING!
contains
SATANIC CULTS
INTOXICATED SUPERMODELS
OLYMPIC ATHLETES
and
MAN-EATING HIPPOS

Italian editionI actually missed the hippos but I did catch the elephants, the tigers, the foxes, gnus, horses, zebra, giraffes, gazelles, camels, African wild dogs, crocodiles—they definitely ate someone—and herds of buffalo. So maybe I can be forgiven; there was a lot going on.

As is so common in sitcoms we have two interweaving narrative threads and my first thought after reading the opening two chapters was: How the hell is he going to tie these two together? But Brautigan handled it brilliantly in Willard and his Bowling Trophies and Ammaniti manages it here and with aplomb. As soon as I read there was going to be a party I realised this was going to be the cauldron in which everyone’s goose would eventually be cooked. (No, there are no geese in the book but there is a headless chicken as well as numerous chicken dishes.)

In a sitcom one of the stories is usually the subplot but really these two stories stand on an equal footing. The first concerns Mantos, Murder, Zombie and Silvietta, otherwise known as the Wilde Beasts of Abaddon. If Jimmy Perry and David Croft had decided to write a show about a hapless Satanic cult they could’ve done worse that choosing these four. When we’re first introduced to them—holding a meeting in a local pizzeria—this is how they’re described:

Mantos (a.k.a. Saverio Moneta) was “[s]kinny, five-foot six, with metal-framed glasses, he wore his hair parted on the left. He was wearing a short-sleeved, light blue shirt buttoned right up to the throat, dark blue cords and a pair of slip-on moccasins.” Saverio, when he wasn’t being Mantos, was the department manager of the Furniture Store of the Master of the Axe. He works for his tyrannical father-in-law.

Murder (a.k.a. Roberto Morsillo) was “[a] chubby guy almost six foot six, with long dyed-black hair and glasses covered in oily fingerprints. He wore a stretched Slayer t-shirt. Originally from Sutri, he was studying Law at Rome University and worked at the Brico DIY centre in Vetralla.”

Silvietta (a.k.a. Silvia Butti) was “the group’s Vestal. A scrawny redhead with bug-eyes sticking out beneath thin eyebrows that sat too high on her forehead. She wore a silver ring in one nostril and another in the middle of her lip.” She and Murder had been dating when Mantos suggested sacrificing her to Satan. The veracity of her virginity was questionable—despite the fact Murder swore they’d done everything bar having sex—but in the end the group decided that “the purity of the victim was not a substantial problem.”

Zombie (a.k.a. Edoardo Sambreddero) was “a haggard-looking guy, who suffered from congenital esophagitis: couldn’t swallow garlic, chocolate or fizzy drinks. He worked for his father assembling electrical systems in Manziana.” He and Murder are best friends. He’s also secretly in love with Silvietta.

The meeting has been arranged because, well, they’re really not much of Satanic cult. And they know it. Zombie cuts to the chase:

        ‘Technically,’ he said, ‘we, as a sect, don’t exist.’
        Saverio has guessed what he was up to, but pretended not to understand.
         ‘What do you mean?’
         ‘How long’s it been since we took the bloody oath?’
        Saverio shrugged his shoulders. ‘It’s been a few years.’
         ‘They never talk about us online. But they talk plenty about the Children of the Apocalypse,’ whispered Silvietta so softly that nobody heard her.
        Zombie pointed a grissino at his chief. ‘In all this time, what have we accomplished?’
         ‘All those things that you promised … How many of them have we done?’ Murder chimed in. ‘You said we’d make loads of human sacrifices, but we haven’t seen hide nor hair of them. And what about the initiation ritual with the virgins? And the Satanic orgies?’

French editionTo be fair they had tried to sacrifice Silvietta the year before but that clearly hadn’t worked out despite the fact they buried her alive. But at least they’d tried. And that had bought Saverio time but now his time is up. He has to come up with something awesome to rally the troops. But what? He asks for a week to come up with something worthy but the bottom line is he hasn’t a clue.

The second storyline couldn’t be more different. About fifty kilometres from the pizzeria we’re introduced to the novelist Fabrizio Ciba. He’s rich and famous but his reputation rests mainly on one book, a one hundred and twenty page novella entitled The Lion’s Den:

Fabrizio Ciba was forty-one years old, but everyone thought of him as [a] younger writer. That adjective, frequently repeated by the newspapers and other media, had a psychosomatic effect on his body. Fabrizio didn’t look any older than thirty-five. He was slim and toned without going to the gym. He got drunk every evening, but his stomach was still as flat as a table.

It’s been five years since The Lion’s Den and no one has had anything much to say about his follow-up, Nestor’s Dream. He’s been living off both the profits and the goodwill generated from The Lion’s Den for long enough and desperately needs something to make the critics sit up:

Fabrizio knew he was capable of writing THE GREAT NOVEL. What’s more, THE GREAT ITALIAN NOVEL, like I promessi sposito be exact, the book critics said was missing in our contemporary literature. And after various attempts, he had begun working on a Saga about a Sardinian family, from the seventeenth century until the present day. An ambitious project that was definitely much stronger than Gattopardoor I Viceré.

Needless to say he is also at an impasse; in that respect he’s a total cliché: the blocked writer.

In an October 2009 interview in Corriere della Sera, Ammaniti, who won international acclaim for his novel I’m Not Scared, explained that most of his approach to Ciba was “teasing, playing with stereotypes … [Ciba] represents a little Mr. Hyde in me.” – Charlotte Bhaskar, ‘The Dark Denizens of a Debauched Rome: Niccolo Ammaniti’s Let the Games Begin, Zyzzyva, 17 July 2013

So much like the Wilde Beasts of Abaddon he’s looking for something to kick start his future. As it happens it’s a party, a party that promises to be the most lavish OTT party that Rome has ever seen, since at least Caligula anyway. His host has converted the grandest public park in Rome, Villa Ada, into his personal safari range and the party promises to deliver debauchery of every sort—feasting (the twelve-decker Club Sandwich Ambassador Grand Royal stuffed full with sixty-five different ingredients says it all), fornicating (not part of the official schedule but far from frowned upon) and hunting (foxes, lions, and an admittedly ailing albino Bengal tiger so think of it as a mercy-killing). Fabrizio, of course, is going as an honoured guest although to be fair there are so many honoured guests he’s unlikely to stand out and for a while is actually in two minds whether or not to go —people have been talking about this party for a year—whereas the Beasts are going to have to wangle their way in among the catering staff in order to exact the plan their leader will hatch in chapter 11.

That plan has nothing to do with Fabrizio Ciba. They have no idea who he is. They’re not big readers.

Farce, of course, is not simply the province of the French and the British but when you think about Italian theatre, what’s the first thing that jumps to mind? The commedia dell'arte! Although it’s hard to establish a clear thread some suggest a connection between the commedia dell'arte and the Atellan Farces which were a collection of vulgar farces, containing lots of low or buffoonish comedy and rude jokes. It was very popular in Ancient Rome.

The commedia dell'arte is a form of theatre characterized by masked "types" which began in Italy in the 16th century and was responsible for the advent of the actress and improvised performances based on sketches or scenarios.

[…]

The characters of the commedia usually represent fixed social types, stock characters, such as foolish old men, devious servants, or military officers full of false bravado. Characters such as Pantalone, the miserly Venetian merchant; Dottore Gratiano, the pedant from Bologna; or Arlecchino, the mischievous servant from Bergamo, began as satires on Italian "types" and became the archetypes of many of the favourite characters of 17th- and 18th-century European theatre. – Wikipedia

Ciba, the blocked writer, is far from being the only stereotype in this book. They’re crawling out of the woodwork.

produkt-8542Satire and farce don’t tend to mix well—farce tends towards the lowbrow (slapstick, fart jokes and gross-out humour), satire is generally more intellectual employing techniques like irony, parody and sarcasm—but I think Let the Games Begin manages to combine the two as well as could ever be done. The party around which the majority of the action in this book takes place isn’t a masque in the traditional sense but this is high society and everyone wears a mask. The Beasts wear their own masks. Most of their days they’re indistinguishable from the rest of us. That underneath their ordinariness there lie bumbling servants of the Devil is neither here nor there. Who’s to say what lies underneath Fabrizio Ciba’s mask or that of his host, the megalomaniacal property tycoon Sasà Chiatti, or the singer Larita (a.k.a. Elsa Martelli) who Fabrizio falls for and who, we learn, is to be the Beasts’ target? Why her? She was once a death metal diva, the lead singer of Lord of the Flies, and as such something of a poster child to the Beasts, but as she’d recently abandoned her roots, converted to Catholicism and reinvented herself as a pop princess putting her name to such albums as Live in Saint Peter and Unplugged in Lourdes, she was now hated by all Satanists and fair game. Once the Beasts learn she’d going to be attending the party it’s obvious what needs to be done. Just as well DHL had just delivered a replica of the Durendal, a “faithful reproduction of the sword of Roland, Charlemagne’spaladin”. That would do the job nicely. All I want to say at this point is: Watch what you buy on eBay.

There are too many characters in this book for every one of them to be fleshed out but the main ones are and here’s the thing: rather than develop an affinity for the writer—bit o’ solidarity there Murdoch—I actually started to find I’d more time for the Satanists. You see once you scrape away the grease paint the Beasts are actually quite a decent bunch of people who simply haven’t grown up whereas most of the guests aren’t, not deep down and most aren’t that deep. It’s what worked so well with The Addams Family. When push comes to shove Mantos does the decent thing and Fabrizio lets the side down—twice in fact.

This is an impossible book to try and summarise. It’s not even that long—328 pages—but an awful lot happens in them some of which is actually quite awful and we wonder why we’re laughing. It really is organised chaos, so much so that you will forgive me for forgetting what happened with the pod of hippos. I was probably too upset about the elephant and the tiger hunt. Seriously this is the party to end all parties. Nothing Gatsby ever threw could come close to the extravagance of this thing. The book is apparently (in part at least) a criticism of the vanities of the Berlusconi era. The newspapers describe his soirees as “bunga bunga parties”; he (at least publicly) preferred to call them “elegant dinners”. In June of this year things came to a head:

220px-Silvio_Berlusconi_(2010)A Milan court sentenced Berlusconi on Monday to seven years in jail and banned him from public office after convicting him of paying for sex with a minor and of abuse of office. He will remain free pending the outcome of his appeals, expected to take several years to resolve.

Prosecutors have presented evidence describing unbridled scenes involving young women stripping and performing raunchy dances at Berlusconi's parties and being rewarded with envelopes stuffed with thousands of euros in cash. – Reuters, 28 June 2013

As I know even less about Italian politics than I know about British politics—that would be nothing compared to next-to-nothing—I can only relay what other reviewers have said.

In the midst of all the pandemonium that ensues—especially after Zombie cuts the electricity—and all semblance of civility goes out of the window—the Lord of the Flies reference is there for a reason—what we end up with is a face-off (of sorts—I can’t really go into the details) between two contrasting-and-yet-at-the-same-time-quite-similar characters: Mantos is married, henpecked (although that’s putting it mildly) by his wife, bullied by her father, struggling financially and unbearably ordinary; Fabrizio is single, successful with women, rich and very much the golden boy of Italian literature: the masks are off. Both want to escape from something in their lives which, interestingly enough, they both wind up doing and it’s all because of this party. They’re not really doppelgängers but there is a connection: there but for the grace of … God or the Devil—take your pick.

The book has its faults. Some of the descriptions are a bit heavy-handed and the short chapters mean you’re continually flipping from one storyline to the next and back. It all adds to the general feeling of disorientation though. Remember what Wikipedia said about a farce—“viewers are encouraged not to try to follow the plot in order to avoid becoming confused and overwhelmed”—well the same goes for readers here and, yet, to be fair, I picked up on all major plot points throughout the reading; it was really the background clutter that went out of focus from time to time which is how I managed to miss the hippos. The book’s funny, although you really need a dark sense of humour to appreciate much of it, and it’s tragic, too; in fact tragedy wins out at the end despite the happyish ending. It’s not a book I would’ve bought and since I was hoping for something more like Me and You—which I read recently and enjoyed—I was a bit disappointed by this one but that’s not the author’s fault. I much preferred Peter Sellers in Being There to Peter Sellers in The Party: horses for courses.

Oh, I forgot about the Olympic Athletes. Did you know that the Olympics were held in Rome in 1960? Well, apparently not all the Russians made it home and you don’t want to know where they were living.

***

Ammaniti,_NiccoloNiccolò Ammaniti was born in Rome in 1966. He has written two collections of short stories and six novels, four of which have been translated into English. His second novel, Steal You Away, was long listed for The Independent Foreign Fiction Prize. He was the youngest ever winner of the Italian Viareggio Literary Prize for Fiction for his best-selling novel I'm Not Scared, which has been translated into thirty-five languages. As God Commands received the prestigious Premio Strega Prize in 2007, and his novel Me and You (which I review here) was made into a feature film by Bernardo Bertolucci.

The translator, Kylee Doust, studied Italian literature and linguistics at La Trobe University, Melbourne. She has lived in Italy since 1998.

Trans-Siberian Prose and Little Jeanne from France

$
0
0

Prose

There is no truth. There is only action. – Blaise Cendrars, Moravagine

Before writing anything about the writer Blaise Cendrars the first thing you want to do is check your facts with as many sources as you can because, like Salvador Dalí a few years later, Cendrars was not adverse to playing fast and loose with the truth. Some facts, however, are not in dispute. He was born on September 1, 1887 in La Chaux-de-Fonds, Neuchâtel, Switzerland, to a bourgeois francophone family. His parents were both Swiss but later Cendrars claimed that his mother was Scottish and he was born on an Italian railway train during his mother's journey back from Egypt (a site maintained by his grandson confirms this although the English is not always very good). His birth name was Frédéric Louis Sauser. He changed it to Blaise Cendrars in the fall of 1911: (braises means “embers,” cendres“ashes”) although he spelled the name “Cendrart” at first. “Writing is being burned alive, but it also means a rebirth from the ashes,”[1] he proclaimed. In his autobiographical fragment Une Nuit dans la forêt, he added:

Well, one may adore fire, but not infinitely respect the ashes; that’s why I rake up my life and exercise my heart (and my mind and my balls) with the poker. The flame shoots forth.[2]

Having lived in Naples (and possibly Egypt)—his father was a travelling salesman—in 1897 he was sent to a boarding school (the Untere Realschule) in Basel in Germany. According to one story he ran away but another version suggests that his family simply gave up keeping him in school because of his poor academic results. In 1902 he was enrolled in business school in Neuchâtel but that didn’t work out either so, in 1904, when he turned seventeen he moved to Saint Petersburg to work as either as a secretary (or an apprentice) for the Swiss watchmaker Leuba—he ran away, Cendrars says, and smuggled jewels from Petersburg to the Orient, but it seems more likely that his father made the arrangements—or possibly for a travelling salesman called Rogovin so it is true that he was in Russia during the Moscow Uprising of 1905 but he wasn’t sixteen as he reports later—simple arithmetic tells us that—and it’s doubtful he was actually in Moscow itself then. It’s also unlikely—as he later claimed—that he fell in love with a beautiful revolutionary who was subsequently hanged by the Russian police. What he seems mostly to have done, outside his working hours, is to haunt bookstores and libraries. In 1907 he supposedly[3] wrote his first poem ‘The Legend of Novgorod’ although there are those who would dispute that. In the same year he returned to Switzerland and began to study medicine at the University of Bern. Needless to say he didn’t graduate.

After a short stay in Paris, he travelled to New York, arriving on 11 December 1911. If Cendrars is to be believed he ended up there after a stint smuggling Russian refugees across the Atlantic and an unspecified period driving a tractor in Canada, but the truth is more likely that Fela Poznanska, a Polish student whom he met at university and who was moving to the States, bought him his ticket. They married whilst there and she bore him three children: Odilon, Rémy and Miriam. In April 1912, he wrote his long poem, Les Pâques à New York (Easter in New York), his first important contribution to modern literature, and in the summer of that year (aged 24), Cendrars returned to Paris, convinced that poetry was his vocation and conversant if not fluent in German, English, Russian and French. With Emil Szittya, an anarchist writer, he started the journal Les hommes nouveaux (The New Man), also the name of the press where he published Les Pâques à New York (which sold zero copies) and Séquences and was absorbed into the burgeoning international array of artists and writers that had flocked to the city; if you were a creative type of any kind in the early 1910’s that was the place to be.

Cendrars's works are part travel journal and part reflection. He created a style using a succession of photographic impressions, feelings, and ideas, which combine nostalgia and disillusionment with an endless world vision.[4]

When is a book not a book? When it’s a work of art. In 1913 he wrote his most famous work—and a perfect example of the above definition—Prose du Transsibérien et de la petite Jeanne de France which describes a fantastic journey through Russia at the time of the first Russian Revolution. It bore the subtitle: "poems, simultaneous colours, in an edition attaining the height of the Eiffel Tower: 150 copies numbered and signed." The Eiffel Tower is 324m in height which means that each individual copy of the book would be just over 2m in height. To achieve this, the authors packed the book like a travel map; it unfolds, concertina-style and there are 22 panels. The actual dimensions are 81¾" x 13¾". It was printed by pochoir (painting through a stencil).

Travel Map

You can examine the text in great detail the British Library site here. In 2009, a copy changed hands at Christie’s Paris for $145,000.

The text, which is in a dozen different fonts, was prefaced by a Michelin railway map of the Trans-Siberian journey from Moscow to the Sea of Japan. Underneath this map a wide green stripe introduces the poem’s title in big block letters as if the stencil were a poster signboard. Cendrars himself referred to the work as "a sad poem printed on sunlight" and that’s not a bad description because the bright graphics occasionally have to fight with quite dark writing:

Through fissures in the sky, enraged locomotives
Go crazy
And in the gashes
Vertiginous wheels mouths voices
Mad dogs bark at our heels
Demons unchained
Scrap heaps
A mock agreement
The broom-vroom-vroom of wheels
Shock
Recoil
We are a storm in the head of a deaf man

(Translated Donald Wellman)

sdelaunay51The book was marketed as “The First Book of Simultaneity.” The idea was that the reader should take in the text and painting simultaneously, and the poem strives gamely toward the same goal. The term Simultaneity suggests that this was a collaborative work but the fact is that the text was written first and then illuminated by the artist Sonia Delaunay (Mme. Delaunay-Turk as she’s listed on the title page). It is as much a work of art as it is a poem and of the sixty-to-a-hundred (not one hundred and fifty) copies that were eventually printed, most surviving copies hang in art galleries. The book, which was sold almost entirely by subscription, created a stir amongst Paris critics perhaps vindicating somewhat Cendrars’s positioning of himself as “the only poet in the Paris of 1913 who could seriously rival Apollinaire.”[5] As it happens the two poets lived together in a broken down house in Paris's Montmartre district known as the "Wash Boat"[6] and were friends.

Paris in 1913 was a hotbed of new ideas—Futurism, Cubism, Orphism, Modernism—and not everyone agreed on what Simultaneity was—the Futurists certainly had their own ideas—and so Apollinaire felt the need to jump to his friends’ defence although he may have had ulterior motives in doing so.[7] In an article in Les Soirées de Paris he wrote:

Blaise Cendrars and Mme. Delaunay-Turk have carried out a unique experiment in simultaneity, written in contrasting colours in order to train the eye to read with one glance the whole of a poem, even as an orchestra conductor reads with one glance the notes placed up and down on the bar, even as one reads with a single glance the plastic elements printed on a poster.[8]

The poster comment is worth pausing over for a moment because in 1927 Cendrars wrote a short piece entitled ‘Advertising = Poetry’. The September 1913 publication date of Prose du Transsibérien et de la petite Jeanne de France was preceded by a flurry of leaflets, subscription forms and prospectuses announcing the forthcoming publication of the first book of simultaneity.

But why prose? Isn’t this a poem? Or a set of poems according to the subtitle? In an article in Der Sturm Cendrars wrote:

The Prose of the Trans-Siberian is ... certainly a poem, since it is the work of a libertine. Let us say it is his love, his passion, his vice, his greatness, his vomiting. It is part of himself. His Eve. The rib he wrenched out of himself. Some life, some life. Some red and some blue, some dream and some blood, as in the tales.[9]

He liked the word ‘libertine’. In the manifesto he released at the time he said:

I am not a poet. I am a libertine. I have no method of working. I have a sex…. And if I write, it is perhaps out of need, for my health, even as one eats, one breathes, one sings….

Literature is a part of life. It is not something “special”. I do not write by vocation. Living is not a vocation…. I have written my most beautiful poems in the great cities, among five million men—or, not forgetting the most beautiful games of my childhood, five thousand leagues under the sea in the company of Jules Verne. All of life is nothing but a poem, a movement….[10]

This reminds me of Dalí when he said, “I am not an artist, I'm a manufacturer of wealth.” And both were clearly showmen. Cendrars wrote that he worked as a juggler in a London music hall while Charlie Chaplin, "then an unknown, was the recipient of kicks on the behind."[11] (When exactly this happened is unclear since he lost an arm in the war in 1915.) The publication of The Prose of the Trans-Siberian wasn’t just a poem. It was an event, a happening. But did it live up to the hype? The fact that I’m writing about it a hundred years later suggests that it must have some staying power. We’re still listening the The Rite of Spring which was first performed then. Incidentally Cendrars was in the audience on May 28th and, “as he tells the story, defended the work so heatedly that a hostile neighbour pushed him through his orchestra seat.”[12]

If it’s a poem though why call it ‘prose’? In a letter to Victor Smirnoff Cendrars explains:

As for the word Prose: I have used it in the Transsiberian in the Vulgar Latin sense of ‘prosa,’ ‘dictu.’ Poem seems too pretentious, too closed. Prose is more open, popular.[13]

Interesting that a poem that says it’s prose, is dedicated to musicians and finds itself part of a work of modern art. Also Cendrars refers to the individual lines as formules. I can find no explanation for this.

So what’s the … let’s just call it a work … what’s the work about? Well, on the surface it’s about a train journey beginning in Moscow—trains feature often in his writings, a logical symbol of the modern world that fascinated him—but it doesn’t end at the Sea of Japan. Jean Cocteau called this particular one “a veritable drunken train”—alluding to Rimbaud’sLe Bateau ivre’ (‘The Drunken Boat’) which is also a fragmented first-person narrative saturated with vivid imagery and symbolism and similarly references the work of Jules Verne—but it’s more than that. It leaps off the tracks and it jumps back and forth through time.

The train does a somersault and lands on all fours
The train lands on its wheels
The train always lands on all its wheels

(Translated Ron Padgett)

If it is based in any way on reality—and that is highly debateable—Cendrars appears to be recounting “in a nonlinear fashion two separate train rides he had taken—one through Asia and the other through Europe”[14] although other countries as far flung as Patagonia, the South Seas and Australia are given a nod. Does the train travel there or does he simply imagine these places whilst on his trip? I suspect the latter.

[W]hen asked whether he had taken the Transsiberian train during his years in Russia, the breathtaking journey depicted in the first person in the Prose du Transsibérien et de la petite Jeanne de France, Cendrars would reply that this was not important; what was important was the fact that his readers had experienced it thanks to him.[15]

blaise-cendrars-2597248In his 1972 book, L’Homme que fut Blaise Cendrars, Albert t'Serstevens points out that Cendrars had, over the course of several years, provided six differing accounts of the Trans-Siberian journey. (He uses the word équipée by which I assume he means ‘escape’.) Miriam Cendrars, the poet’s daughter, claims that he did; but as her biography of her father Blaise Cendrars (Ed. Balland, 1993) is based almost entirely on her father’s writings who can say? The following observation is worth noting however:

[A]s a child he had been to the Universal Exposition of 1900, in Paris, where the Compagnie Internationale des Wagons-Lits offered a “Moving Panorama of the Voyage from Moscow to Peking,” a painted backdrop mounted on rollers and turned by cranks, which featured Russian and Chinese restaurants in the stations of Moscow and Peking.[16]

It begins in December 1905 with the poet boarding the Trans-Siberian in the company of a jewel merchant who was on his way to Harbin in northeast China, not actually the last stop but it’s where the poet decides to get off too and yet somehow the poem ends in Paris or not in Paris physically but with the poet yearning for the place which, to be frank, he does for the whole journey. The poem is an elaborate montage of sensations, images and narrative fragments. As Cendrars said in his novel, Moravagine, “There is no truth. There is only action.” This is reminiscent of what Charles Olson would say years later in his 1950 pamphlet Projective Verse:

ONE PERCEPTION MUST IMMEDIATELY AND DIRECTLY LEAD TO A FURTHER PERCEPTION. It means exactly what it says, is a matter of, at all points (even, I should say, of our management of daily reality as of the daily work) get on with it, keep moving, keep in, speed, the nerves, their speed, the perceptions, theirs, the acts, the split second acts, the whole business, keep it moving as fast as you can, citizen. And if you also set up as a poet, USE USE USE the process at all points, in any given poem always, always one perception must must must MOVE, INSTANTER, ON ANOTHER![17]

They travel through war-torn lands and there are numerous images of war, apocalyptic visions of disaster. He can do little more than compare the horrors outside the compartment window “to the sense of the horror bred in him by hedonism and insouciance—qualities that became, for Cendrars, central characteristics of the City of Lights.”[18]

I said that the poem was not a collaborative work but in some respects that’s not true:

Cendrars met [Robert] Delaunay in 1912 and settled in his house in the autumn of the same year. It was the year Delaunay elaborated his theory of “simultaneism” in painting. Cendrars took an active part in this epic quest, whose most celebrated outcome was the first “simultaneist” book co-authored by Cendrars and Sonia Delaunay (the painter’s wife)…[19]

The river flowed both ways. Just as Robert Delaunay’s theories affected Cendrars, Cendrars also affected the Delaunays. They were clearly kindred spirits. The poem was written employing the mindset of the Delaunays:

In fact [Robert] Delaunay’s well-known phrase ‘Everything is colour in movement, depth,’ is constantly cited by Cendrars as a figure for his own poetics.

[…]

The idea of ‘depth’ … is one which appears to situate modernity in terms of being rather than consciousness; this is the profondeur of reality, a ‘depth’ of experience at which all conventional barriers between discourse and its objects have been overcome…[20]

The beginning of the poem is interesting. Cendrars opens with ‘En ce temps-là’ which translates as ‘At that time’. It’s not exactly ‘Once upon a time’—the French equivalent would be ‘Il était une fois’ (‘There was one time’)—but it’s an unusual way to begin a poem. It’s like beginning a poem with ‘And’. In modern parlance the poem hits the ground running and it never stops. There are no pages to slow you down and barely any punctuation to the piece.

If the future is an undiscovered country then the past is a rediscovered one.

Cendrars helps us to understand that we are constantly rewriting the past as new events and present developments change our understanding of the narrative we have formed about it. It is impossible to see the past as finished; its meaning is always deferred and differing.[21]

When is now? In the poem there are many nows but it’s clear too that they’re all in the past: “Now I’ve made the trains follow me”, “Now I was the one playing the piano”, “Now the train had lost its allure”.

Cendrars may not have been a Futurist but he had much in common with them. Futurism is not about the future. Futurism is not an excess of modernity. Futurism means: unique artistic happening. Free. Fascination with the present. The irreversible course of "progress." It is visual arts, literature, film, architecture, theatre, dance, cuisine and fashion. And yet this poem is full of nostalgia. Throughout the piece Jehanne asks him—a sort of anti-“Are we there yet?”—"Say, Blaise, are we a long way from Montmartre?" Always looking back. And what’s the first thing he does when he steps off the train but look ahead to the time he would be back in Paris. He’s even travelling with the past because who is Little Jehanne other than a modern day Joan of Arc one of those emblematic characters like John Bull or Uncle Sam, albeit his Joan is more profane than she is sacred since she’s a prostitute rather than a saint. I, personally, don’t believe that Jehanne is real. I think she’s a metaphor; he talks about her “fantastic presence”. It’s as if Paris personified—hence the amalgam of the sacred and the profane—is sitting beside him constantly reminding him that he’s a long way from home which is also why she can vanish so easily later in the poem.

Paris time Berlin time St Petersburg time the time in all the stations
And at Ufa the bloody face of that gunner
And the shiny witless clockface at Grodno
And the perpetual forward motion of the train
Each morning watches are synchronised
The train advances and the sun retreats
Nothing happens, I hear the solemn pealing of the bells
The mighty drone of Notre-Dame
The bitter chime of the Louvre bell that sounded out St Bartholomew’s Day
The rusty carillon of Bruges-la-Morte
The electric chimes of the New York Public Library
The campaniles of Venice
And the bells of Moscow, the bell at the Red Gate that tolled the hours away for me as I worked in the office
All those memories
The train thunders over turntables
The train rolls onwards

(Translated Dick Jones)

There is even a significant Proustian moment:

He [the jewellery salesman] insisted I wore a new suit, and whilst boarding the train, I lost a button

I remember it well, so well, I've thought of it often since –

PTS_01The button—how would Doctor Who put it?—is a fixed point in time. It anchors him to that moment. It is also always lost as the past is always lost and as such it is a symbol of both; he cannot find the button, he can only find where he lost the button.

The poem has been translated many times—I’ve found seven different versions online although only one, by Tony Baker and Alan Halsey incorporates illustrations into the text—and now we have an eighth by my friend Dick Jones. I’ve long championed Dick’s own poetry but this sees him with his translator’s hat on. In the last year I’ve tried my hand at translating a couple of short poems and did not do the best of jobs. It’s far harder than one might imagine.

I’m therefore ill-equipped to comment on the translation but let’s just have a look at a few from early on in the piece. I was lucky enough to be able to compare Dick’s final draft with an earlier one posted online:

En ce temps-là j'étais en mon adolescence

The opening line. Most translators went for something along the lines of ‘At that time I was in my adolescence’ which is accurate as far as the translation goes. Dick originally had ‘At the time I was just a kid’ which has more bite and has a contemporary feel but he finally opted for, ‘At that time I was just an adolescent’.

Et j'étais déjà si mauvais poète
Que je ne savais pas aller jusqu'au bout.

A literal translation of this would be something like ‘And I was already such a bad poet / That I did not know how to go to the very end’ but that’s not really what he’s saying. He’s saying he doesn’t know ‘how to go about it’ which it what Donald Wellman opts for. Dick originally had ‘And I was already so bad a poet / that I just didn't know how to carry it off’, which I liked, but his finally choice of, ‘But I was so bad a poet / that I just didn’t know how to follow it through’ works too.

Some words are hard to translate, for example, bruissements, in the line:

Et mes mains s'envolaient aussi, avec des bruissements d'albatros

which a couple simply avoid by rendering the line ‘And my hands flew up too, sounding like an albatross taking off’ (Padgett) or ‘And my hands flew away also, with the sound of an albatross’ (Passes). ‘Groaning’ (Wellman) is just plain wrong; ‘Rustling’ (Albert, Likhtik, Young) is better and although perhaps not as accurate Dick’s original ‘And my hands soared with them, flurrying like the wings of a rising albatross’ is evocative. He finally settled for, ‘And my hands soared with them, beating like the wings of a rising albatross.’

Et mes yeux éclairaient des voies anciennes

Google translates ‘voies anciennes’ as ‘old ways’. Dick went for ‘My eyes shone out over the ancient ways.’ Others chose ‘paths’, ‘pathways’, ‘roads’ and ‘streets’. I can see why he might choose the word ‘way’ but ‘route’ would also work—you think of a train route—so why not, ‘My eyes lit up those ancient routes’ or something like that; I’m thinking about the light at the front of the train here.

There’s no right answer. Dick could argue his case, I can argue mine and all the others will have good reasons for their choices.

And, of course, there are lines all of them struggled with:

Des femmes, des entre-jambes à louer qui pouvaient aussi server
De cercueils

And there were plenty of women, eager to sell their hidden treasures, vacant thighs for hire Coffins (Young)

Women with vacant thighs for hire
Who could also serve
Coffins (Padgett)

Women who open their legs for a price can also be of use
The coffins (Wellman)

Women renting between their legs and who could also serve
Coffins (Likhtik)

In an early draft Dick originally had:

Those women who peddled their cunts and who could also play nursemaid
To the coffins (Jones)

which I though was a brave choice but, in the final draft, he opted for:

Then there were all the women
with room between the legs for hire who could also service
the coffins (Jones)

I personally think Baker hits the nail on the head with:

Dozens of women whose open thighs you could hire who also
Serviced the coffins (Baker)

There’s probably hardly a single line in the poem where every translator agrees.

This new translation will be published next year by The Old Stile Press who specialise in limited editions of fine art books, printed by hand. About as far from an ebook as you could get then. I thought I’d ask Dick a few questions about the poem and why he felt a new translation was needed:

pp14-15rough

JIM:In her book, Found in Translation: How Language Shapes Our Lives and Transforms the World, Nataly Kelly says, “Poetry translation is like playing a piano sonata on a trombone.” She’s not the first to try and express how hard the job is—Umberto Eco said, “Translation is the art of failure.”—and so I have to ask: Why? Especially when there are already half a dozen perfectly adequate translations available?

DICK: And Pasternak said that ‘translation is very much like copying paintings’. No one, least of all the translators, has a good word to say for translation as a means whereby to capture and communicate the absolute essence of the original. So indeed, why bother?

First, some background. I was introduced to La Prose du Transsibérien et la Petite Jehanne de France by my French teacher. An iconoclastic prof, he didn't use textbooks in his lessons, feeling as he told us many times that the prosaic adventures of M. Vanel and his dreary family were of no consequence within the vital literary and musical culture of his beloved France. So we learned our verbs regular and irregular (particularly the latter) via the songs of chansonniers and chansonnières suchas Charles Trenet, Édith Piaf, Juliette Gréco, Georges Brassens and Anne Sylvestre, the prose of Victor Hugo, Guy de Maupassant, Alain-Foulnier, Gustave Flaubert and the poetry of François Villon, Arthur Rimbaud, Guillaume Appolinaire and Blaise Cendrars.

Cendrars fascinated me as a 16-year-old proto beatnik because his work, particularly the Transsibérien, seemed to prefigure so strongly the freewheeling, hedonistic output of Kerouac, Ginsberg, Corso and Ferlinghetti. I've returned to it over the years and long after the Beats slipped down my hierarchy of heroes, its rambunctious appeal remained firmly in place.

Then three years ago a health crisis occurred in my life and I needed something to distract me from the process of addressing it. Having recently translated some Jacques Prévert poems [see here and here], I decided to tackle the Transsibérien. Initially, then, the translation was an exercise with no particular thoughts of trying to disseminate the results beyond my blog. But when after completing a first tentative draft I risked a peek at other translations into English I was struck by what I saw as the difficulties that their writers had experienced in rendering a poem written in 1913 into an English idiom that captured the character of the original French whilst at the same time making the piece accessible to a contemporary readership.

It was at that point, I guess, that a degree of hubris entered the proceedings and I went to work with a specific pair of objectives in view. Twelve full drafts later and with the close support of my friend and this edition's illustrator Natalie D'Arbeloff and the eagle eye of Blaise Cendrars' daughter Miriam cast over each rendition (and as a result with hubris entirely deflated), my version joins those already in print.

JIM: In her article on Cendrars Martha Cooley asks, “Why read Blaise Cendrars?” and then answers her own question:

‘Why read Blaise Cendrars? He's a blast. One can find few more entertaining or riveting writers in the modernist canon. He's playfully experimental in ways that many contemporary writers can only hope to be–yet without show-offish tics. He's got no master plan for his prose; he's in it for the ride, the discoveries, the apprenticeship, and the adventure–well-earned, in his case’.[22]

Is that a statement you’d agree with?

DICK: Entirely. There’s a cheerful, reckless iconoclasm about the Transsibérien. It’s as if Cendrars has, for no reason other than the downhill thrill of it all, abandoned the conventions of the time and set the writing free. This insouciance seems to have no foundation in a deliberate deconstruction of current stylistic protocols. It appears to arise more from an impatience with anything that might inhibit or constrain the narrative and the internal commentary that accompanies it. Whilst his prose is more conventionally presented, it is driven by a similar adrenaline rush. In the semi-autobiographical novel Moravagine, Cendrars writes: There is no truth. There's only action, action obeying a million different impulses, ephemeral action, action subjected to every possible imaginable contingency and contradiction. Life. This is not to say that Cendrars was a kind of poetic naïf, nor did he ever, as in early Bob Dylan mode, try to pass himself off as such. Alongside Apollinaire,André Breton, Jean Cocteau, he was widely read across the literary spectrum and he was an intimate of many of his foreign contemporaries, not least fellow iconoclasts American authors Henry Miller and John Dos Passos. I believe that Cendrars’ freewheeling tale-telling, style and content, is a direct expression of those ‘million different impulses’ and our good fortune is that his artistic instincts and a passion to communicate rendered his work accessible to readers up for the ride.

cuttingP6-Trans-Sib

JIM: Describe the poem to me. We know it’s set on the Trans-Siberian Express but what’s it really about for you?

DICK: For me, it is what it is! A straightforward description of the content of the Transsibérien would represent it as a juggernaut account of the poet’s trip across Russia on the Trans-Siberian Railway at the time of the first Russian Revolution, accompanied by the French prostitute Little Jeanne/Jehanne. Stylistically, it offers surreal, sometimes hallucinatory reminiscences of life in Paris in his childhood and dreamlike imaginings of exotic places yet to be experienced, mingled with documentary realism and dime store novel imagery. The whole is presented in combination with Sonia Delaunay’s extraordinary abstracted illustrations, the shapes and colours of which are designed to echo and highlight (with the alternation of different typefaces) the atmospheres of the ongoing narrative. This process they called simultaneisme and it prefigured so much that was to come later.

In terms of some kind of transcendent meaning above and beyond text and illustration, that’s more to be found in the many later works that were so influenced by the Trans-Sib. Inthe synthesis of the faux-naif and the artful that typifies so much of the writings of the Beats, as I’ve already cited - their striving for a style that would encompass both the visionary spiritual and the immediate sensory experience, these works frequently performed to an illustrative jazz accompaniment.

JIM: You came to Cendrars, as it seems many do, via Henry Miller who, on your blog, you say you were passionate about at the time and that when you learned of the poet’s death you, in your words, “mourned rather ostentatiously and began, as a homage, a translation of Trans-Siberian Prose and Little Jeanne from France,” so clearly this is a poem you’ve lived with for a long time. What is it about this poem that’s so special that you’ve returned to it for over fifty years?

DICK: Quite simply, I find his account of that headlong journey from Yaroslavl Station in Moscow to Harbin in Manchuria as exciting now as when I first read it in my teens. Then the three trips that I took in the late ‘80s and beginning of the ‘90s on the Trans-Siberian Railway provided me with a personal experience of the vast terrains through which it passes and the mighty distances that it covers. So the documentary resonances within the poem have heightened meaning for me now and I have a much greater appreciation of the cinematic qualities of much of the writing. What was once absorbed romantically from the poem’s imagery is now perceived empirically.

JIM: That’s you. And I can understand, as purely a personal project, your deciding to have a crack at your own translation, but publishing it is another matter entirely. It’s a hundred years on and the world has changed. Modernism is old hat, as is postmodernism: what relevance has this poem today?

DICK: I’m not a critic; I’m not an intellectual. Neither modernism nor postmodernism as boxes within which to package creative material interest me greatly. Yes, the Transsibérien is probably the first great poetic work in what subsequently was to be identified as the ‘modernist’ style. But it’s the poem’s freshness and vitality, the immediacy of its highly personalised voice that excite me and that ensure that it gets read today as much as ever it did.

JIM: Your version has been illustrated by the artist Natalie D’Arbeloff. How important has it been to echo the spirit of Simultaneity in the work? Is it a collaboration or has Natalie simply illustrated your work?

DICK: As touched on previously, when Blaise Cendrars and Sonia Delaunay worked together on the original version of the Transsibérien the collaborative element was crucial. The intention was to produce a synthesis of the verbal and the visual and its publication was as a manifestation of simultaneity. Although I had written several drafts of the poem prior to Natalie’s involvement, that driving principle of the original was never far from my mind. So when Natalie suggested the collaboration, I was delighted and the subsequent drafts were produced in close consultation with her. In fact, for me the translation only really achieved some sense of real form and substance within the context of this project.

JIM: How involved has Miriam Gilou Cendrars been with the project?

DICK: Mme Cendrars has followed the process both of final draft translation and illustration very closely. We submitted copies of both text and graphics to her as they emerged and we’re enormously pleased that after her close scrutiny the final version has her imprimatur. She’s an extraordinary woman, still active and fully engaged at the age of 94.

JIM: The book will not be cheap—Old Stile Press books often retail from anything from £50 to £250—and I can’t imagine many of my readers being willing to spend a week’s let alone a month’s shopping on a book. Is this really the best way to present the book? Would you consider creating a website sometime in the future to give the poem to a wider audience?

DICK: The original version of the Trans-Sib was published in a sumptuous edition, the entirety of it presented as a single sheet of heavy-duty paper folded concertina-style ten times. The print run was 150 so it was never planned at that stage as a mass-market endeavour! Whilst neither attempting nor hoping to emulate that original format, Natalie and I wanted to embrace something of its spirit, hence the submission of the piece to Nicolas McDowall at the Old Stile Press. In its decidedly luxuriant edition, it will sell to the libraries and universities that are the main patrons of Old Stile Press publications. However, the hope is that at some point we’ll be in a position to try for a more conventional outlet and that the Trans-Sib will be easily accessible to the larger market.

p7layout

The artwork is at an early stage of development and Natalie’s anxious that this is clear. She told Dick:

After cutting the blocks, I make trial proofs on my etching press and alter the design if needed, also gradually work out the colours. When the text will eventually be printed letterpress by Nicolas McDowall along with the images, the effect on the final paper will be quite different.

She has, however, provided some images so we can get an idea what the finished product will look like and in a blog back in August she talks about the process in some detail.

ONLINE VERSIONS



FURTHER READING


Mary Ann Caws, ‘From Prose to the Poem of Paris or Cendrars' Tour’, Dada/Surrealism 9, pp.20-28

Katherine Shingler, ‘Visual-verbal encounters in Cendrars and Delaunay‘s La Prose du Transsibériene-France: an on-line Journal of French Studies,Vol. 3, 2012, pp. 1-28

Yannis Livadas, ‘My grandfather Blaise Cendrars’

Marjorie Perloff, ‘Cubist Collaboration/ Abstract Assemblage: The Avant-Garde Artist’s Book’

Blaise Cendrars, The Art of Fiction No. 38, The Paris Review, Spring 1966, No.37

REFERENCES


[1] Quoted by Brendan Isaac Jones in the Fall 2011 edition of Narrativemagazine but not referenced

[2] Quoted in Marjorie Perloff, The Futurist Moment: Avant-Garde, Avant Guerre, and the Language of Rupture, p.5

[3]“In September 1995, to the great surprise of French­speaking literary circles, Blaise Cendrars’s first poem, La Légende de Novgorode, was discovered in Russian translation by the Bulgarian poet and translator, Kiril Kadiiski. This poem had acquired a mythical status in Cendrars’s literary production on account of its systematic appearance in many works and bibliographical lists by the author. Cendrars’s constant questioning of the relationship between the literary and the real throughout his œuvre had made the actual existence of this work seem unlikely. Its discovery therefore received much attention and the authenticity of this text still courts controversy today” – N. Parish, ‘A textless title: the mythical status of Blaise Cendrars' La Légende de Novgorode’, Journal of European Studies, 42 (1), p.1

[4] William J. Roberts, ‘Cendrars, Blaise’; France: A Reference Guide from the Renaissance to the Present, European Nations quoted by Facts On File, Inc.

[5] Marjorie Perloff, The Futurist Moment: Avant-Garde, Avant Guerre, and the Language of Rupture, p.5

[6] The name is attributed to the poet Max Jacob. How he came up with the name is not clear. Some claim it was because it reminded him of the laundry boats that used to sail on the Seine.

[7]“One must bear in mind, in considering Apollinaire‘s interpretation of La Prose du Transsibérien, that ‘Simultanisme-librettisme’ was written in the context of an ongoing spat with Barzun over the nature and intellectual ownership of poetic simultaneity, and that this may partially motivate his reading. In seeking allies against Barzun, it may be that Apollinaire deliberately plays down any differences between his calligrammes and La Prose du Transsibérien, in order to bring it into line with his own theoretical concerns.” – Katherine Shingler, ‘Visual-verbal encounters in Cendrars and Delaunay‘s La Prose du Transsibérien

[8] Quoted in Marjorie Perloff ‘Cubist Collaboration/ Abstract Assemblage: The Avant-Garde Artist’s Book’

[9] Blaise Cendrars ‘The Prose of the Trans-Siberian and of the Little Jeanne of France’, Der Sturm No. 184-185 reprinted in Chicago Review Vol. 24, No. 3 (Winter, 1972), pp. 3-21

[10] Quoted in Marjorie Perloff, The Futurist Moment: Avant-Garde, Avant Guerre, and the Language of Rupture, p.10

[11] Quoted in Jeff Bursey, ‘Blaise Cendrars’, Review of Contemporary Fiction, Vol. 24 No. 1, April 2004

[12] Marjorie Perloff, The Futurist Moment: Avant-Garde, Avant Guerre, and the Language of Rupture, p.15

[13] Quoted in Marjorie Perloff, The Futurist Moment: Avant-Garde, Avant Guerre, and the Language of Rupture, p.14

[14] Stephen Eskilson, Graphic Design: A New History, Second Edition, p.145

[15] N. Parish, ‘A textless title: the mythical status of Blaise Cendrars' La Légende de Novgorode’ in Journal of European Studies, 42 (1). p.4

[16] Paul La Farge, ‘Idiots! How Someone Else Wrote Blaise Cendrars’s Classic 1926 Novel’, Believer, Vol 2 No 9, Septemebr 2004

[17] Charles Olson, Projective Verse

[18] Brendan Isaac Jones, Narrativemagazine, Fall 2011

[19] M. B. I͡Ampolʹskiĭ, The Memory of Tiresias: Intertextuality and Film, p.140

[20] Peter Nicholls, Modernisms: A Literary Guide, pp.122,123

[21] N. Parish, ‘A textless title: the mythical status of Blaise Cendrars' La Légende de Novgorode’, Journal of European Studies, 42 (1), p.6

[22] Martha Cooley, ‘Blaise Cendrars’, Post Road Magazine, Issue 2

Carnaby Street’s Great Uninvited – Around the World in 80 Years

$
0
0

CarnabyStreet-04-Custom
Words are all we have – Samuel Beckett
There are too many words in the English language. And yet more and more are being coined every day. Why? You’d honestly think by now there would be a word for everything and yet, perversely, there isn’t and most of the words that we have are nowhere near as precise as I for one would like them to be. Is ‘huge’ the same, for example, as ‘enormous’ or ‘vast’ or ‘gigantic’? Or what about ‘whacking great’, ‘whopping’ or ‘humongous’? Let’s face it they’re all pretty much interchangeable but is huge the same as ‘plus big’ or ‘double plus big’? And what’s the ratio of ‘big’ to ‘plus big’ to ‘double plus big’? You see, even with Newspeak it’s still possible to be vague.

Want to wager a few quid on whether ‘huge’ or ‘enormous’ or ‘vast’ or ‘gigantic’ will even be around in, say, a hundred years’ time? The rise and fall of words is a fascinating subject when you get into it. Why do certain words survive unscathed for thousands of years—words like ‘I’ or ‘thou’ or ‘who’—whereas others are gone within a few decades? Does ‘cool’ still mean ‘groovy’? If I started peppering my posts with ‘cool’ and ‘groovy’ nowadays I’d sound like a right Herbert or whatever the current buzzword is for a square dude. Of course ‘square’ is still with us but now it means what it always did: a regular parallelogram whose internal angles are all 90º and whose sides are all of equal length.

Occasionally words go out of fashion and then make a comeback. The phrase “hey-ho” has apparently been returned to dictionaries recently—thanks to the Internet it seems:
"A lot of internet communication is written speech, or transliterated speech," says Tony Thorne, a language consultant at King's College London. "Social media is all about nudging and poking. It's a more amplified conversation."
Ultimately, finding written ways to express the visual—like shrugging—is a key component of internet communication and social networks, says Mr Thorne. "People introduce these light hearted conversational things which normally you only find in speech," he says.
In that way, he suggests, "hey-ho" could just be the new emoticon. – Laura Schocker, ‘Why has “hey-ho” made a comeback?’, BBC News Magazine, 1 September 2009
Makes perfect sense in the age of ever-contracting communication styles but does that mean that all big words are doomed? And there are some lovely big words kicking around, words like ‘nincompoop’ (possibly a contraction of non compos mentis), which we’ve had since the mid-1600s: can you imagine one kid calling another a nincompoop, a ninny perhaps—a further contraction of the word—but I wonder how many would have a clue about the word’s origins?

maudEvolution is all about the survival of the fittest and the fact is that some words are no longer fit for purpose and have been replaced. Is that such a bad thing? The English language still has more words available to us than any of us use. Does it matter that the days of words like ‘aerodrome’ and ‘charabanc’ are numbered? Just like the Yangtze Finless Porpoise and the Humphead Wrasse are on the World Wildlife Fund’s Endangered Species List so likewise ‘aerodrome’ and ‘charabanc’ are on Collins Dictionary’s endangered words list. As a kid I thought ‘charabanc’ was ‘charabang’ because that’s how my dad pronounced it. It was one of his ambitions—sadly, never fulfilled—to drive one. So it’s a word I’ll take to the grave with me but I wonder how long it’ll survive after that. Should we let it die a natural death or try to preserve it? Does it deserve our protection? What if some pop star called their next album Charabanc? Would that guarantee it respite for another generation?

Like all writers—at least I’d like to think all writers feel the same as I do—I’m passionate about words. I love to discover new ones. As a kid I would literally sit and read the dictionary or Hartrampf’s Vocabulary Builder which was on the endangered books list until 2007 when it reappeared with a fancy new cover. Here’s what a reviewer says in Amazon:
This book was first bought for me when I was twelve. It changed my life. Better than a thesaurus, more comprehensive and easier to use, it expanded my vocabulary and was the foundation for the love of language I have never lost.
I am thrilled to see that it is still available. All budding rappers, poets, school kids and their teachers should possess this book!
I concur. Another writer who I expect would agree with us would be Safia Shah, author of (the wordy bits at least) of Carnaby Street’s Great Uninvited – Around the World in 80 Years; the artwork was contributed by Mark Reeve. More on him later.

Safia_Shah_Journalist_and_WriterSafia Shah—now Safia Thomas—is a British writer, editor and television news producer. She was born in London in 1966 and, for several years, ran a respected traditional delicatessen, A. Gold in London, specializing in entirely British fare. She now lives close to Casablanca in Morocco which explains, perhaps, why her latest book, Carnaby Street’s Great Uninvited – Around the World in 80 Years, is set there despite the rather British-sounding title. The title is misleading. Carnaby Street is a person, a young girl—she looks about seventeen—and the book’s narrator; her fez-wearing younger brother is called Oxford. Odd names in children’s books are not uncommon—Arrietty in The Borrowers, Hermione in the Harry Potternovels (the name’s popularity was at an all-time low in 2010 and now’s at an all-time high) or Horton from the Dr Seuss book which despite the film adaptation has still not Carnabyproved that popular with parents)—but, perhaps because I’m a Scot, I didn’t much care for Carnaby Street as a name. On my first read I actually thought it was the boy—for some reason I expected the boy to be the narrator—and wondered why Safia didn’t call him Barnaby. We don’t learn what their parents’ first names are but we are introduced to a number of their relatives—the great uninvited of the title—such as Florence May Street-Macadam and the rather Harry-Potter-looking Carter Able-Street-Macadam sometimes called ‘Chasm’ “as that’s his initials.” The Streets have a number of pets: Martin the cat who, on page eight, abandons them to train as a milkman; ten unnamed tortoises, one of whom “fell off the roof, in what can only be described as ‘highly suspicious circumstances’” and an aardvark called Alice whose real name apparently is ‘Orycteropus’ which, we’re told, means ‘aardvark’.

Every now and then a word or a phrase is highlighted in the text. Mostly these are unusual words like ‘refrained’, ‘innovation’, ‘depleted’, ‘smarting’ and ‘profusion’. There’s a reason for this:
In your copy of the book, you will find a bookmark with squillions of fantastic endangered words and a pocket magnifier. Use the magnifier to reveal some cunningly hidden, mind-boggling new words. Coloured text on the page is your clue that a definition is hidden nearby. Be warned: some are harder to find than others!
I didn’t use the magnifier which was enclosed. I used my own and I have to say the print was not simply tiny: it was microscopic. Just a few points bigger wouldn’t have hurt. But it’s a good idea and the definitions are quite well-hidden within the illustrations although not as well as Wally (or Waldo if you’re an American). Of course once you’ve found them once I’m not sure what fun there might be had in looking a second time. Also there was no pocket to keep the magnifier in and I’m pretty sure most kids will lose theirs. It would’ve been a much better idea to ditch the bookmark and simply attach the magnifier to the nice turquoise ribbon.

On the book’s website—always a good idea in this day and age—the author explains why she’s written the book in the way in which she has:
There are somewhere between 150,000 and a quarter of a million words sloshing around in the English language but we routinely get through our day using as few as 7,000 of them.
In the glorious age of the text and the tweet, some 20 percent of our endangered words may be slipping from usage; a sobering statistic for anyone with a love of language that extends beyond the telephone keypad.
Here at Carnaby’s Great Uninvited, we’re calling upon anyone interested in saving some of these dear, wise, elderly and enfeebled words to help us breathe new life into old. Let’s snatch begrumpled from the brink of obscurity, jazz up jargogle and massage poor sick kedge-belly back to life. We want to open our wink-a-peeps and with your help, champion their cause.
It’s commendable but mostly the words she’s chosen to highlight are still staples, at least as far as us adults are concerned, but she does find room to include ‘jargogler’, ‘tar macadam’, ‘ninnyhammer’, ‘kit and caboodle’, ‘brabbler’ and ‘wasabi’ as well as the odd common idiom such as ‘as useful as a chocolate teapot’. Needless to say the text sounds a little awkward at times, a bit contrived:
AmeliaWe called Great Aunt Amelia ‘Gr- AAH’, which began as her names and somehow ended in the exclamation we made as she introduced us to her pet, Josie Shranks [a snake]. Globetrotting companions for almost half a century, they had little good to say of one another. 
[Graah says,] “I don’t much care for her but she has been with me for a very long time.” 
Graah had seen most of the world and had the baggage to prove it. 
We gave her the best room in the house because she’d come all the way from Matabeleland. And we were unaware that she was just the first of many guests to arrive. 
If only there had been some sort of a sign that so many more relatives were on their way. [A drawing of the cat holding a postcard suggests why.] 
Graah’s arrival caused the tortoises to momentarily consider a change in domicile. But the greatest strain was felt by Alice. Who had no fondness for reptiles. And who would have preferred that relatives and their reptilian pets refrained from coming to live with us. 
Being a python, Josie Shranks made Alice zigzag. That’s what aardvarks do when they see a predator– they zigzag.
CarnabyStreet-48-Custom

Why were ‘exclamation’, ‘globetrotting’, ‘Matabeleland’, ‘momentarily’, ‘reptilian’ and ‘zigzag’ not highlighted? Some strange choices here. I particularly wondered about Matabeleland since at the start of the book she chooses to “define” the film Casablanca. That said there’s more about Matabeleland hidden away on the website. I must say I’m not crazy about the use of sentence fragments. Increasing our children’s vocabularies is indeed a commendable thing but I’d rather see us spend the time on grammar and punctuation. Overall I found the tone of narration affected, put on and as likely to put kids off as much as to encourage them. My wife, on the other hand, said she could easily imagine having read the book to one of her grandchildren and keeping their attention even without stopping to explain every word. That said she thought some of the definitions were a tad too British—Carrie, for those who don’t know her, is an American—and it’s only because she’s lived here for as long as she has that she got some of them.

chefAs far as content goes there’s not really much of a story here. Aunt Sylvia and her family arrive followed by Great Aunt Amelia who “seamlessly replaced our regular cook”, as Carnaby puts it. Like we all have cooks that can get so easily replaced. Reminded me of Enid Blyton’s worldview as Amelia cooks a meal made entirely out of different coloured potatoes (one of which manages to look and taste like chicken), shows a slideshow of her travels, has a knitting competition with Carnaby’s mum before heading off to bed with stories still to tell and we’re left—this is the age of the sequel—wondering which relatives will turn up next. Like I said, not much of a story. We are told at the end, however, that this is to be “the first of a series of books that will centre on Carnaby Street and her madcap relatives.”

Now, before you think I’m not overly impressed with this book, what you have to keep in mind is that this is only a part of a much larger endeavour. In addition to this book there are five ebooks entitled As Clear as Mud: The Brabbler’s Guide to Idioms—two volumes exist at the moment—Awfully Nice: The Quester’s Guide to Oxymorons, A is for Anonymuncle: The Brabbler’s Endangered ABC and I Literally Exploded: The Quester’s Guide to Misused Words. Now this is more like it. And obviously there are more books in the pipeline. This is what’s needed. I still think it’s an uphill and pretty pointless struggle—it’s the common man who decides what words stay or go—but if these books only get into the hands of one or two kids like me—and there have to be kids out there for whom language is a source of endless fascination—then it will have been a worthwhile venture.

Children’s books these days are rarely the product of a single author and one of the great pleasures I had when I first met Carrie was being able to wander round Waterstones looking for new and interesting books for her grandchildren since I don’t have any of my own. I’m not sure this one would’ve jumped out at me. Not based purely on the cover and, as I’ve said, the title doesn’t do much for me either. Had I known what was driving the author then I would’ve been more interested, which is why I agreed to review this book.

I love comics. I’m fifty-four years old and I still love comics. I think they’re horrendously expensive for what they are but I find it very hard to venture into Forbidden Planet and not come out with armfuls. What I love about them is the art. Sometimes the stories are good—the X-Men ‘Days of Future Past’ storyline or frankly any of the Sandmanarcs—but many are forgettable. What saves some—Todd McFarlane’s run on Spider-Man is a good example—is the artwork. McFarlane is an okay writer but he’s an astounding artist. It’s rare to get someone who can write and draw and few writers of children’s book can do both well; Maurice Sendak is the only one that jumps to mind but I’m sure I’ll think of others in a few minutes.

Mark ReeveNow back to the illustrator, Mark Reeve. From his agency’s website [a few illustrations are available here too]:
Mark has been a commercial artist for twenty years. 
His first drawing was of a red elephant aged 5 and an intensive study of Marvel and DC Comics ensued, and Art college beckoned. First he attended Great Yarmouth College of Art and, in his own words, ‘achieved the rare distinction of failing the course and obtaining a confidential report so bad no other place would touch him’. Eventually however, he got his degree in Graphics at Kingston Art College and he has since produced a plethora of work, his folio comprising everything from DC comics, book covers, storyboards and film visuals, animation, political cartoons (he was political cartoonist on the Mail On Sunday for three and a half years and was awarded the Gillray Cup by The Political Cartoon Society 2004), sculpting and drawing the heads for Spitting Image and more recently, designing some sixty characters for ITV1′s satirical animated show Headcases (2008).
His comic book art’s not on a par with Bernie Wrightson or Joe Kubert or anything but there are nods. It’s obvious the man knows how to draw. But can he draw for kids? [NB: I do distinguish between comic book art and book illustration; they are far from being the same thing.] He does okay actually. What I especially liked was his careful use of colour. None of the illustrations are entirely in colour and so draw your eye to the important bits—exactly like highlighting in text. And there’s a mix of martinstyle—some are comic-booky (I’m think more Beano and Dandy comics here) whereas others (the father in particular) veer towards caricatures of real people (one of the many things Reeve does for a living—see here). The artwork here isn’t lush like the likes of Anthony BrowneVoices in the Park­ was one of the books I remember buying for one of Carrie’s grandkids—it veers more towards the cartoony style of Quentin Blake and there’s definitely a touch of Ronald Searle in the little girl and a bit of Charles Addams in their cat—it’s the eyes—or maybe Edward Gorey. There’s a lot on most of the pages to keep a kid’s interest over repeated viewings and, as I indicated above, the storytelling is not restricted to the words which is good because it feels more like a collaborative venture that way.

I’m not sure as a boy I would’ve enjoyed this book though. It feels a little girly. There are boys in it doing boys things—the cat is most definitely a Tom—but the knitting and the cooking stuff wasn’t really very exciting and there’s really no story at all surrounding the first set of guests, Alice and her family. Why didn’t Carter and Oxford go off and get into trouble? Then again why didn’t Florence and Carnaby do stuff together? They arrived, there was a wee bit of talk about names and that but the book really didn’t get going until Graah arrives to disrupt their lives, only unlike the Cat in the Hat or the tiger who came to tea, she’s not especially disruptive.

My biggest problem with the book is all to do with age. I’m really not sure what age range it’s aimed at. The language involved would need an older child to get to grips with it but he or she might feel they’re a bit old for a storybook. Then again I personally can’t imagine sitting a reading this to a child at the end of the day. There’s simply not enough meat to the words. So it’s a tough call. All parents know their own kids so they’d be best placed to decide what their children might appreciate. I had a look at some kenreading evaluation tests online and I reckon you’d need to be about eight or nine to cope comfortably with the level of comprehension needed here.

The next book in the series will be Great Aunt Maud – A Leech Jar Named Desire, to be followed by Grandfather Frederick — A Fish Called Brenda and Cousin Angel – Mimi La Minque. More details here.

The recommended retail price of the book is £10.95 but, of course, you’ll be able to pick it up for less than that. Amazon has it for £9.39 as I write this and for a hardbacked book I don’t think that’s too bad an investment.

Poetic energy

$
0
0

Brain light bulb

Poetry is energy, it is an energy-storing and an energy-releasing device. – Miroslav Holub, Poetry Ireland Review, Autumn-Winter 1990




What’s the point to a poem? I’m somewhat in agreement with William Carlos Williams who stated that “a poem is a small (or large) machine made of words.”[1] Words are what drive a poem. He said they were capable of “explosions of linguistic energy.”[2] When asked to define ‘poetry’ this is what he had to say:

I would say that poetry is language charged with emotion. It’s words, rhythmically organised… A poem is a complete little universe. It exists separately. Any poem that has worth expresses the whole life of the poet. It gives a view of what the poet is.

[…]

In prose an English word means what it says. In poetry, you’re listening to two things … you’re listening to the sense, the common sense of what it says. But it says more. That is the difficulty. – William Carlos Williams from Paterson Volume V quoted in The William Carlos Williams Reader, pp.99,100

If a poem is indeed a machine then most (if not all) poems are remarkably inefficient machines as much is lost in the process. As a metaphor I prefer to think of a poem as a by-product of a process—in this case I am the machine—and what ends up on the page could be discarded; it’s served its purpose as far as I’m concerned. I call it by-product and not an end product or waste product because I recognise that others can make use of what I write; the writing of the poem was enough for me. But I’m not completely opposed to the metaphor of a poem as a machine. Let’s run with that. So, what is a machine?

A machine is a tool that consists of one or more parts, and uses energy to achieve a particular goal. Machines are usually powered by mechanical, chemical, thermal, or electrical means, and are frequently motorized. Historically, a powered tool also required moving parts to classify as a machine; however, the advent of electronics technology has led to the development of powered tools without moving parts that are considered machines. – Wikipedia

Okay, we’re talking physics here not metaphysics but a poem meets the basic conditions. It’s made up of many parts (letters, words, punctuation marks) that form a unified whole which isn’t consumed in the process of its operation; it would be a lousy spanner that needed to be replaced every time you wanted to loosen or tighten a nut. Energy, however, isn’t quite as easy to define. Simplistically put: Energy is the capacity of a physical system to perform work. That said:

It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. – Richard Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1964) Volume I, 4-1

Work, however, is a precisely defined concept in physics. Again, in simple terms, it is: force x distance through which the force is applied. Energy is transferred from one body to another by one body performing work on the other – i.e. pushing against it through a certain distance. (Think of a bicycle pump and how you push it in against resistance for a certain distance.)

There’s a physical distance between you and I right now (and a temporal distance too but let’s not complicate things). I’m working by rattling away on my keyboard The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poeticsand you’re working by moving your eyes back and forth. So we’re all happy that work has taken place and work requires energy. Since energy cannot be destroyed (First Law of Thermodynamics) is it reasonable to assume that some of the energy used in a poem’s creation goes into the poem? And, if so, what kind of energy are we talking about? Wikipedia lists eleven kinds of energy but it has nothing to say about poetic energy. The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics doesn’t have an entry for ‘Poetic Energy’ either. And yet a lot of people use the expression assuming that everyone knows what they’re on about. Most notably George Eliot—not TS, who occasionally (not unreasonably) gets credited with the remark:

Here undoubtedly lies the chief poetic energy: – in the force of imagination that pierces or exalts the solid fact, instead of floating among cloud-pictures. – George Eliot, Daniel Deronda, p315

Many others use the expression. A selection:

The very structure of the language he uses suffers the impact of an entirely unfettered poetic energy in this truly unique book. – Enrique Molina talking about Oliverio Girondo’s last book of poems, In the masmédula

Robert Louis Stevenson ... discovered sources of "primitive" poetic energy in his own psyche, most notably through the nightmare that yielded Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. – Patrick Brantlinger, Rule of Darkness: British Literature and Imperialism, 1830-1914, p.232

The power inherent in the words surfaces as the presence of an energy field, of psychic energy, or perhaps better said, psycho-poetic energy. – Dennis Patrick Slattery, ‘Psychic Energy's Portal to Presence in Myth, Poetry and Culture’ in Eranos Reborn: The Modernities of East and West; Perspectives on Violence, p.466

[T]he poetic rhythms grow and soar with energy. An expanding set of alliterations and assonances and inner rhythms are a product of the poetic energy. – Elaine B Safer, ‘William Gass, the Short Story and Metafiction’ in Nor Shall Diamond Die: American Studies in Honour of Javier Coy p.473

[Ted] Hughes defines energy as ‘any form of vehement activity’, through which one invokes ‘the bigger energy, the elemental power circuit of the universe’. – Keith Sager, The Achievement of Ted Hughes, p.73

Reader may further observe poetic energy as cyclic, the continuum a panorama of valleys and plateaus with peaks of inspiration every few years. – Allen Ginsberg, preface to ‘Kaddish’, Collected Poems, p.26

Okay, what then is poetic energy and where does it come from? Plato was the first to come up with the notion of a poetic energy:

[In Ion] he speaks of enthusiasmos (a kind of divinely inspired 'enthusiasm' or 'energy' equivalent to the Latin inspiratio) in terms of magnetic power as it passes from one iron ring to another. In just such a way, he suggests, poetic energy is communicated from the divinity to the poet and so on through the performer (here the rhapsode) to the audience. – Rob Pope, Creativity: Theory, History, Practice, p. 92

Of course in these secular times few credit divinities with anything much so let’s pass on to more recent thoughts on the subject:

It is poetic activity that creates a poem. But what is a poem? It is the manifestation of poetic energy, etc. – Cleanth Brooks to Robert Penn ‘Red’ Warren in A Literary Correspondence, p.301

The energy latent within language which often energises the aesthetic imperative. – Murray Cox, Alice Theilgaard, Shakespeare as Prompter: The Amending Imagination and the Therapeutic Process, p. 80

Professor Woodberry defined ‘poetic energy’ as “shared and controlled emotion.” – William Aspenwall Bradley, ‘Inspiration and Poetic Energy’, The New York Times, 26 March 1910

As a result, Tennyson's poetic energy would come not from the vitality of the poet's personality expressed through his characters, but from his technical skill in manipulating language. – Andrew Elfenbein, Byron and the Victorians, p.174 [Compare that to what Wallace Stevens says below]

People-who-love-reading-poems often do so because of the sheer energy of connections between a poem and the section it is in, the book it is in, the epoch it is in. When the energy is unleashed, one wants to scribble in the margins, following the flight of ideas/emotions/images. – Aaron Moe, ‘People Who Claim They Don’t “Get” Poetry’, 28 December 2011

…a communicable energy rooted in the experience of human corporeality, an energy that resonates with the body and between bodies, giving poetry both its feeling of reality and its capacity to move. – Joseph Campana, 'On Not Defending Poetry: Spenser, Suffering, and the Energy of Affect' in PMLA, Vol. 120, No. 1, Jan., 2005, p.34

Such an energy is the profound intellectual control of material, as distinct from profound emotional sensitiveness to the material. – John Drinkwater, The Lyric, p.12

More than a century ago, Francis B. Gummere, in a close study of the early beginnings of poetry, pointed out that rhythm was the initial source of poetic energy and was fundamental to the making of poetry. – Cecile Chu-chin Sun, The Poetics of Repetition in English and Chinese Lyric Poetry, p.31

Long vowel sounds will decrease the energy at that point in the poem and make the mood more serious.

Higher vowel sounds will increase the energy and lighten the mood. – Examples of Assonance Poems, YourDictionary.com

…poems crammed full of repetition and alliteration. The result is poetry bursting with dynamic energy. – 'Gerald Manley Hopkins', BBC

Energy in poetry … is compelled to manifest itself through form, not simply or necessarily metrical structure but a continuous inevitability of movement… – Edwin Morgan, ‘Dunbar and the Language of Poetry’ in Essays in Criticism Volume II, Issue 2, p.138

A line of poetry on a page exists in space, but I think of it as a kind of timing, a measured flow of poetic energy, a dynamic. – Mei-mei Berssenbrugge, 'Two Lines', Poetry.org

…the facts and the descriptive writing jostle with each other and the poem’s energy derives from the collision. – Neil Powell, Carpenters of light: Some Contemporary English Poets, p.128

Lots of opinions then. Energy, whatever its source, is clearly a part of the process just as electricity powers so many machines these days but generally energy is not the intended end product (unless you’re a turbine) and I personally find poems that focus on energy lacking. I agree wholeheartedly with what’s said here:

Poetry which concentrates upon energy—its generation, control and unleashing—generally leaves readers with an exhilarating sense of kinesis, as skiing or flying does, but without a firm conception of content. It lives most fully in the act of reading, and recedes during the process of critical reflection when more tangible problems of 'meaning' come naturally to the fore. – DF McKay, 'Aspects of Energy in the Poetry of Dylan Thomas and Sylvia Plath' in Critical Quarterly, Volume 16, Issue 1, pages 53–67, March 1974

ep“Great literature is simply language charged with meaning to the utmost possible degree,” wrote Ezra Pound. You see he doesn’t discount energy—he says “charged with meaning”—but energy is not the poem’s end, simply a means to an end:

In some writers, and these the very greatest … poetic energy and poetic art are seen in something like equipoise. It is of poetry as an art, however, that we have mainly to speak here; and all we have to say upon poetry as an energy is that the critic who, like Aristotle, takes this wide view of poetry—the critic who, like him, recognizes the importance of poetry in its relations to man’s other expression of spiritual force, claims, a place in point of true critical sagacity above that of a critic who, like Plato, fails to recognize that importance. – Theodore Watts-Dunton, ‘Poetry as an Energy and as an Art’, Encyclopaedia Britannica 10th edition (1902)

I have to say I’ve read that last paragraph several times—Christ, they could be wordy back in 1902—but my general feeling is that he’s saying that those who view “poetry as an energy” have fallen short in their estimation of what poetry can and should be.

This article was prompted by a couple of comments made concerning my review of Stephen Nelson’s poetry collection Lunar Poems for New Religions. My article took a very literal reading of the main poem ‘Look Up!’ which the poet himself thought was not really the way to read the poem. Stephen said:

I'm of the opinion that you don't have to understand a poem to be moved by it, indeed the way it moves you is more important than understanding. I find easily understood poems a bit boring sometimes. Unusual or complex language and structure are just more enjoyable. I particularly like the flow of spontaneous writing, where meaning is perhaps subordinate to energy.

and his comment was supported by my friend Marion McCready who said, “I'm in complete agreement with Stephen over the energy and language of a poem being much more important to me than meaning.” My response (in part):

I wonder sometimes why I’m a poet because there’s a whole level of poetry that seems to be screened off from me. Words are all about meaning and those meanings, once processed, prompt feelings. What is this “energy and language” of which you speak? Yes, of course, there’re dynamics in writing—short punchy sentences, long meandering sentences—and choice of word makes such a difference … but I cannot understand what anyone gets from a poem if not meaning and feeling. I read Wilfred Owen and he makes me think and feel. I read Philip Larkin and he makes me think and feel. I read Ginsberg and he makes me want to scream.

When I first read—correction, tried to read—‘Look Up!’ I wanted to scream too. Having heard Stephen read it … I suppose I can see what you’re on about when you talk about “energy” but it’s so short-lived and I would still argue that what one experiences still comes under the general heading of ‘feeling’. I’ve the same problem when people talking about spirituality. I don’t get it. Religion for me was always an intellectual exercise first and foremost. You need to understand Christ’s sacrifice before you feel anything about it. At least I do. I know there will be people who learn that Jesus died for us but don’t understand what that actually means and so go off feeling stuff based on a false premise but false or not their emotion response is still a natural reaction to an intellectual proposition.

Marion and Stephen are not alone, however, when it comes to considering energy paramount:

My chief point ... is that I must read our poems in their field of energy—our entire body poetic. Call it imaginative reading, which is also why the field of interpretation is always open. In that field of poetic energy, what matter most is not the language but what is done to it, how it has been worked and what is reaped; how language has been made to serve the poet's imagination. Imaginative reading is another mode of reasoning, of thinking through language—of finding one's own path through language—which isn't the usual mode of reasoning and theorising that we are taught in academe... – Gémino H. Abad, ‘A Sense of Country: Our Body Poetic’ in Philippine Studies: Have We Gone Beyond St. Louis?p.493

I think Charles Whitmore’s comments are particularly relevant here:

It is a commonplace of literary history that no great outburst of poetic energy has been unattended by the lyric. Not only may we fairly say that its vitality is an index of the vitality of the deeper poetic energies, but we may add that it endures when other forms seem dormant or moribund, and that when it is wholly extinguished, true poetry is practically at and end. It would, therefore, seem that an examination of the lyric, and a definition of its peculiar qualities, would be likely to throw light on the nature of poetry itself. – Charles E. Whitmore, ‘A Definition of the Lyric’ in PMLA, Vol 33 No 4, 1918, p.584

philip-larkinI’m not going to get into a deep discussion of what ‘lyric poetry’ means these days if, indeed, it’s an appropriate term other than to identify poetry which isn’t narrative poetry. Unsurprisingly Larkin—who Michael Billington once described as “a fine lyric poet with tragic personal limitations”[3]—has little to say on the subject of energy[4] (apart from to acknowledge the existence of creative energy) although others have certainly seen fit to comment on his poetry’s negative energy[5] but in his book Sisir Kumar Chatterjee twice[6] uses the term “lyrical energy” to try to describe what he believes powers Larkin’s poetry; the term has also been used by other authors with reference to the diverse writings of Christina Rossetti, Cole PorterShakespeare and Ralph Gustafson. Lyric poetry died away at the start of the twentieth century, came back for a bit, faded again, came back again. “In the early years of the twentieth century rhymed lyric poetry, usually expressing the feelings of the poet, was the dominant poetic form in America,” so says Wikipedia. It then goes on, “The dominance of lyric was challenged by American experimental modernists such as Ezra Pound, T. S. Eliot, H.D. and William Carlos Williams, who rejected the English lyric form of the nineteenth century, feeling that it relied too heavily on melodious language, rather than complexity of thought.”

Most poets—and I include myself here—would accept that one of the major ways in which poetry distinguishes itself from prose is in its use of sound. Before Stravinsky music tended to stick to regular rhythms harking back to the early dances, allemandes, sarabandes, gigues, minuets, and it pretty much found a key and stuck to it. And poetry is no different. We’ve moved on from songs and iambic pentameters. Poetic ‘melodies’ are far more complex these days, jarring even, but our ears have learned how to cope and even appreciate these rhythms. Word choice is extremely important. It may have a minimal effect on meaning—as I’ve said before is there any real difference between ‘wait a minute’ and ‘hang on a sec’?—but it affects the tone of the piece and therefore the feeling you get from it. Poetry is not simply an intellectual exercise and poetry that doesn’t illicit feelings in its reader is pretty drab poetry in my book.

We’re in danger of drifting away from our original topic. So let’s look at a poem famous for its energy. Here are the opening lines to Kurt Schwitters’ poem ‘Ursonate’:

Fümms bö wö tää zää Uu,
                   pögiff,
                   kwii Ee.
Oooooooooooooooooooooooo,

dll rrrrr beeeee bö
dll rrrrr beeeee bö fümms bö,
    rrrrr beeeee bö fümms bö wö,
         beeeee bö fümms bö wö tää,
              bö fümms bö wö tää zää,
                   fümms bö wö tää zää Uu:

It goes on like this for over a thousand lines but if you’ve ever heard it performed you couldn’t argue that there’s an energy at work here. Here’s a clip of Schwitters himself reciting most of the above (not sure what the cow’s got to do with anything):

There are nine versions of the poem available here. It’s worth nothing that Schwitters describes the piece in musical terms:

The Sonata consists of four movements, of an overture and a finale, and seventhly, of a cadenza in the fourth movement. The first movement is a rondo with four main themes, designated as such in the text of the Sonata. You yourself will certainly feel the rhythm, slack or strong, high or low, taut or loose. To explain in detail the variations and compositions of the themes would be tiresome in the end and detrimental to the pleasure of reading and listening, and after all I'm not a professor. – The Ursonate (or: Sonate in Urlauten)

There are those who would argue that this piece is nonsensical and they have a case. On one level it is meaningless. If any meaning is to be gleaned from it the bulk of the work will have to be done by the listener. The sounds may remind him of things from his past, dredge up memories and feelings and this is no different to Gershwin’s inclusion of tuned taxi horns in An American in Parisor Respighi’s incorporation of a recording of actual birdsong in The Pines of Rome. I still see meaning and feeling as the intended result here. If the listener is not willing to open up in that way then the exercise will be pointless and (probably) painful. This is supported by what Schwitters himself wrote:

As with any other reading, correct reading requires the use of imagination. The reader himself has to work seriously to become a genuine reader. Thus, it is work rather than questions or mindless criticism which will improve the reader's receptive capacities. The right of criticism is reserved to those who have achieved a full understanding. – The Ursonate (or: Sonate in Urlauten)

‘[A] full understanding’. He doesn’t talk about those who have been energised by the work; rather he talks about those who have understood it.

Okay, let’s move onto a more traditional poem, one in English at least. Here’s the opening stanza to ‘Thank You' by Heather Nagami:

Why, thank you for the compliment!
Yes, I do speak well, don't I? I've studied hard
these 24 years, well, 23 if you don't count
that mindless baby talk. And no, I don't speak
my own language, but thank you for your concern.
I'm sure it is very much your business.
I know it is a shame. But I'll promise you one thing.
I'll learn someday! Yes! I thought that would make you happy.
And, I think you're so right; I will need it when I go back.
Oh, how I long to go back! Where everyone's hair is black,
eyes are brown, and they think I'm just as much a foreigner
as you think I am.

You can read the full poem on her blog along with a comment on the poem by David Landrum a professor at Grand Valley State University who says of the poem:

I teach poems like 'Thank You' by Heather Nagami, an ethnic poem that does not draw on metrics in any way. And while it is good, I think the text doesn't give it enough of a dynamic for it to endure as a work of art for very long. It is admirable but not enduring and many poems are like this. I like to think it is the lack of poetic dynamic, the lack of poetic energy in the poem that does this. And I can't help but think the Whitmanesque tradition provides more poetic language than just the poetry of flat statement. – comment on ablemuse.com, May 2006

and this is how she responds:

I do agree with Landrum in that it does not draw on metrics, and the truth is that I also highly value some type of cadence in poems. I get extremely impatient when I read a poem that does not seem to have a sense of music. However, there is something to be said for not making something ugly beautiful. The essentialist way of thinking about culture, the unspoken entitlement involved in the types of statements ‘Thank You’ addresses is ugly. Music and rhythm would make it pretty; it is not pretty, and I'd rather strip the language down to show it as it is than pretty it up for a pleasant, even quaint, reading.

I do not, however, agree that it lacks poetic energy, but I believe I am simply defining poetic energy differently from Mr Landrum. If poetic energy comes simply from music, then yes, it lacks poetic energy. However, if poetic energy is what is produced from emotional content infused into the poem and the feelings, questions, and ideas that are stirred in a reader who connects with the poem, then it is certainly brimming with poetic energy. I also would not consider this "the poetry of flat statement" either, since none of the statements I make in the poem are what the poem is actually saying. – Heather Nagami, ‘I prefer “Poem of Color”’, Life Indefinite, 4 June 2012

200px-Charles_OlsonThe key expression here, for me, is, “I am simply defining poetic energy differently from Mr Landrum.” Part of the problem I’ve found in my researches so far is that, just as with literal energy, there’s no definitive, no clear definition of what poetic energy is which I don’t find strange because no one seems to be able to define a poem any more these days either. Not to everyone’s satisfaction.

One poet who talks at any length about poetic energy was Charles Olson in his manifesto Projective Verse which begins:

First, some simplicities that a man learns, if he works in OPEN, or what can also be called COMPOSITION BY FIELD, as opposed to inherited line, stanza, over-all form, what is the “old” base of the non-projective.

(1) the kinetics of the thing. A poem is energy transferred from where the poet got it (he will have some several causations), by way of the poem itself to, all the way over to, the reader. Okay. Then the poem itself must, at all points, be a high-energy construct and, at all points, an energy-discharge. So: how is the poet to accomplish same energy, how is he, what is the process by which a poet gets in, at all points energy at least the equivalent of the energy which propelled him in the first place, yet an energy which is peculiar to verse alone and which will be, obviously, also different from the energy which the reader, because he is the third term, will take away?

This is the problem which any poet who departs from closed form is specially confronted by. And it involves a whole series of new recognitions. From the moment he ventures into FIELD COMPOSITION—puts himself in the open—he can go by no track other than the one the poem under hand declares, for itself. Thus he has to behave, and be, instant by instant, aware of some several forces just now beginning to be examined. (It is much more, for example, this push, than simply such a one as Pound put, so wisely, to get us started: “the musical phrase,” go by it, boys, rather than by, the metronome.) – Charles Olson, Projective Verse, 1950 (bold mine)

He still doesn’t actually say what this energy is though. He does mention a force later on:

Because breath allows all the speech-force of language back in (speech is the “solid” of verse, is the secret of a poem’s energy), because, now, a poem has, by speech, solidity, everything in it can now be treated as solids, objects, things; and, though insisting upon the absolute difference of the reality of the verse from that other dispersed and distributed thing, yet each of these elements of a poem can be allowed, once the poem is well composed, to keep, as those other objects do, their proper confusions. – Charles Olson, Projective Verse, 1950

Of course he’s still talking metaphorically. Speech is not solid. This is the clearest explanation of what Olson might have meant when he talked about energy I could find online:

High energy is the crux of projective verse—verbalized perceptions that move quickly and efficiently, leading to subsequent perceptions in a way that does not allow a poem’s energy to lag, or to be sidetracked, by poetic and intellectual conceits. In the shaping of these energies, a dynamic form emerges. – Jim Benz, ‘Charles Olson's Essay on Projective Verse’, Suite 101, 5 February 2010

Zukofsky also spoke of “the energies of words”[7] when he was formulating his idea about what would come to be known as Objectivist poetry but I can find nothing that explains what he meant by that expression. Pound famously described an image as “an emotional and intellectual complex in an instant of time”[8] which Peter O’Leary in this interview says is “for all intents and purposes a paraphrase of energy.” In the same interview he also says that his contemporary Ron Johnson “believed at his core, that poetry is imaginative energy in language.” There’s no doubt that a great many poets have their own thoughts on the subject. Pity they don’t agree more.

754_morganlargeI found much of what Edwin Morgan has to say in his essay ‘Dunbar and the Language of Poetry’ interesting although, of course, he still doesn’t define poetic energy:

'Of what we call genius,' wrote Matthew Arnold, 'energy is the most essential part.' [...] If poetry is the manifestation of energy in order, Arnold's statement is still the backbone of the argument; we are dealing with ordered energy, not with energetic orderliness. [...] Energy without order usually gives us the feeling that we are in touch with a poet but not with a poem: the forges clang, the air is thick with the spark and fume of production, but in the end nothing is made, no object presented to us that we can grasp and appraise. [...] Order without energy is exemplified by the poet whose inspiration is fitful and less than a match for his knowledge of what effects poetry can produce. [...] But there is a complication, which Arnold did not consider. Energy may be felt by the poet primarily as order. – Edwin Morgan, ‘Dunbar and the Language of Poetry’ in Essays in Criticism Volume II, Issue 2, p.138

Perhaps ‘energy’ is the wrong word here entirely. I was rather struck by what Wallace Stevens had to say here:

Since we have no difficulty in recognizing poetry and since, at the same time, we say that it is not an attainable acme, not some breath from an altitude, not something that awaits discovery, after which it will not be subject to chance, we may be accounting for it if we say that it is a process of the personality of the poet. One does not have to be a cardinal to make the point. To say that it is a process of the personality of the poet does not mean that it involves the poet as subject. Aristotle said: “The poet should say very little in propria persona.” Without stopping to discuss what might be discussed for so long, not that the principle so stated by Aristotle is cited in relation to the point that poetry is a process of the personality of the poet. This is the element, the force, that keeps poetry a living thing, the modernizing and ever-modern influence. The statement that the process does not involve the poet as subject, to the extent to which that is true, precludes direct egotism. On the other hand, without indirect egotism there can be no poetry. There can be no poetry without the personality of the poet, and that, quite simply, is why the definition of poetry has not been found and why, in short, there is none. – Wallace Stevens, ‘The Figure of the Youth as Virile Poet’ in The Necessary Angel, 1965 (bold mine)

We’re used to thinking of a personality in terms of dynamics, a forceful personality, a powerful personality, an energetic personality. I think Stevens might be onto something here and it reminded me of this:

[William Carlos] Williams often described the force or energy of poems as an essence or rare presence. These images occur quite early in his writing. A 1921 editorial in Contact, discussing Burke's article on Laforgue, describes the search for a "milligram of radium," while the essay on Marianne Moore published in A Novelette and Other Prose speaks of the "white light that is the background of all good work."– Lisa M Steinmann, ‘William Carlos Williams and Science’ in Science and Literature, p.143[9]

Personally I don’t see poetic energy as a thing. I see it as a metaphor. This following quote makes perfect sense to me:

Harrington's 'ecology of creativity' ... moves as freely across the human-machine as the human-nature interface. Working from the premise that 'life processes are sustained by functional relationships and interdependencies', he observes that 'the ecological study of human creativity will almost surely need to include a role for the concept of information and information flow that is in some respects analogous to but importantly different from the concept of energy and energy flow in biological ecosystems'. – Rob Pope, Creativity: Theory, History, Practice, p.69

It worries me this elevation of energy. The earlier quote from DF McKay where he talks about an “an exhilarating sense of kinesis” really jumped out at me, as does what Edwin Morgan said about forges clanging, as does what the poet Brad Leithauser has to say in a rather scathing attack on modern poetry—which he sees as having lost touch with most prosodic techniques:

The harmonies of rhyme, along with all the vitalising dissonances of off-rhyme, have been largely silenced. So, too, the heartbeat of meter, and the tugging counterpoint that speech rhymes create against it. [...] The final result, when coupled with a lack of interest in new, compensatory prosodic devices, is a poetry that seeks to build most of its energy by breaking lines at whatever points appear most confusing or disruptive. One sees again and again an attempt, in Richard Wilbur's words, to "throw a monkey / wrench into the poem." The effect sometimes is a kind of energy, but of a transitory and often unpleasant bumptious sort. This is freneticism masquerading as power—a sort of jittery, caffeine high. And given the narrowness of its source, one is not surprised when its stamina collapses and all energy drains from the poem on a second or third reading. – Brad Leithauser, ‘The Confinement of Free Verse’ in Conversant Essays: Contemporary Poets and Poetry, pp.165.166

In all I’ve read (and I’ve spent several days reading everything I can find online on the subject) I’m still not convinced that “the energy and language of a poem [are] much more important … than meaning.” I think the poet Thom Gunn might have it about right as he put it in this early poem addressed to his mentor Yvor Winters:

You keep both Rule and Energy in view,
Much power in each, most in the balanced two:
Ferocity existing in the fence
Built by an exercised intelligence.

(from ‘To Yvor Winters, 1955’)

I’d be delighted to hear what you have to think. Anyone care to have a stab at a) defining poetic energy for me or b) trying to convince me why it’s more important than meaning?

 

REFERENCES


[1] See Kinetic Energy in William Carlos Williams's Poetry by Olya Mariam

[2] He said this in a letter to the editors of The Little Review in 1929 (according to this article). A fuller quote can be found here: The Revolution in the Visual Arts and the Poetry of William Carlos Williams, pp.44,45

[3] Michael Billington, ‘Life limited by love’ in The Guardian, 13 November 1999

[4] In a letter to Monica Jones he wrote, “I think it is a grave fault in life that so much time is wasted in social matters, because it not only takes up time when you might be doing individual private things, but it prevents you storing up the psychic energy that can then be released to create art or whatever it is.” – Philip Larkin: Letters to Monica, p.35 His brief ‘statement’ on what poetry is is worth reading.

[5]"Deprivation is for me what daffodils were to Wordsworth.” – Philip Larkin, Required Writing: Miscellaneous Pieces, 1955-82, p 47

[6] Sisir Kumar Chaterjee, Philip Larkin: Poetry That Builds Bridges, pp.12,325

[7] See ‘The Energies of Words’ by Peter O’Leary, Poetry Foundation

[8]Literary Essays ed. TS Eliot, 1976, p.4

[9] See also The Autobiography of William Carlos Williams, p.362 reproduced in a more readable form as a PDF here.

The Song of King Gesar

$
0
0

The Song of King Gesar
And on this bridge of longing, as we sing of him,
Gesar himself, the ever-youthful Lion King descends
Surrounded by flags and pennants snapping in the wind
To forge the weapons that cut the life force of fear and doubt,
To subdue and destroy the demonic hordes

(trans Douglas J. Penick)


Before Canongate sent me this book I knew nothing about the Epic of King Gesar. Had I been born in Tibet and not Scotland the story would’ve been very different. There he’s as well-known as King Arthur is in the UK or Odysseus is to the Greeks. Surprisingly, considering the fact it’s been around since at least the 12th century (although there are arguments suggesting it started to take shape much earlier – see History and the Tibetan Epic Gesar), it took a long time for an English translation to appear despite the fact that “Western researchers had discovered King Gesar in the 18th century and the study of the epic, named Gesarology, blossomed in the 1960s.”[1] Probably the world’s greatest expert on the subject is Jampel Gyatso who has been studying King Gesar since 1981. In August 2013, W020131115410498856121after working on the project with others for nearly thirty years, he finally published a forty-volume abridged version of the epic. The newly-published edition comprises nearly 600,000 lines in Tibetan poetry, equal to 20 million words in Han characters. But that’s nothing:

From more than 150 ballad singers, Chinese researchers have collected more than 120 volumes of the epic, reaching more than 20 million words in 1 million lines. It you add the Greek epics—the Iliad and Odyssey, and the Indian epics—the Ramayana and Mahabharata, their total length is much shorter than that of King Gesar.[2]

Over the years, four million copies of King Gesar in Tibetan have been published in various versions of which some two hundred exist. When you consider the fact there are only some five million Tibetans it puts the book’s importance into perspective. In Scotland I wonder, for example, if 80% of the population these days even own a Bible let alone any book of Scottish mythology.

Although people have started writing it down the fact is it existed for a long time only in oral form which it still does to this day and is still very much a work in progress. Basically it’s a chantefable, a chant-fable, recorded partly in prose and partly in poetry, although it existed before the western term was popularised but I’ll come back to that. Ballad singers throughout the east keep the work alive and “China boasts about 100 Gesar ballad singers, mostly from ethnic Tibetan or Mongolian groups in outlying areas with poor access to traffic or modern communications.”[3]

A CNN report on one of the oldest Gesar singers

"There are 20 Tibetan opera troupes propagating the ancient epic in different forms," said Zhang Yong, a leading official of the Culture, Sports, Radio and Television Bureau of the Guoluo Tibetan Autonomous Region.

Zhang said, in a village called De'erwen in Gande County, Guoluo, all villagers, young or old, can sing the ballad. There are more than 30 villagers who can sing more than two versions of the epic. The village thus was named "De'erwen Gesar Culture Epic Village."

There are more than one hundred folk artists engaged in Gesar epic, and 24 folk Tibetan opera troupes in Guoluo. With the perseveration and creation of the folk artists, the story of Tibetan hero King Gesar has been widely propagated.[4]

A recent article in Shanghai Daily regarding the ballad singer Dawa Zhagba makes interesting reading.

According to Wikipedia the core of the epic in all versions can be summarised very, very briefly as follows:

King Ge-sar has a miraculous birth, a despised and neglected childhood, and then becomes ruler and wins his (first) wife ’Brug-mo through a series of marvellous feats. In subsequent episodes he defends his people against various external aggressors, human and superhuman. Instead of dying a normal death he departs into a hidden realm from which he may return at some time in the future to save his people from their enemies

The main episodes of the epic are outlined here.

When this book arrived from Canongate I got the wrong end of the stick completely. I assumed it was an English translation because it says on the back:

THE FIRST ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE TIBETAN HEROIC EPIC

the superhuman lifewhich it is not. Alexandra David-Néel translated the epic into French in 1931: this was subsequently translated into English as The Superhuman Life of Gesar of Lingin 1933 and on checking Amazon I found several other English translations; Douglas J. Penick, for example, has recently completed a three-volume version. There’s nothing on the dust jacket of The Song of Gesar to suggest this is actually a part of Canongate’s long-running Myth Series in which ancient myths from various cultures are reimagined and rewritten by contemporary authors which is, in fact, what it is. As far as I was aware there are eighteen of these so I did wonder why on the book’s spine there was a ‘XV’ but I let that pass; they’re planning a hundred in total. It would’ve probably helped, too, if I had known who Alai was, but I didn’t and just dived into the book without checking anything as I tend to do if I can get away with it assuming that the less I know beforehand the better.

Most of the books in the Myths Series are short—that was part of the deal—but when you’re starting off with a text that fills some 120 volumes concessions have to be made. That Alai managed to compress the epic into a single volume is Chinese Covercommendable in itself although to be fair what we have here is an abridged version of Alai’s book. Alai wrote his original in Chinese and was agreeable to the work being shortened further following the translation process. But at what cost?

I should probably state here and now that I’m not a big fan of mythology. I struggled to get through Ragnarok: The End of the Gods when I read it back in 2011 despite the fact it was well-written and was far more interested in the little biographical snippets that I found myself in the lives of the gods in question. At least there, thanks to Marvel Comics, I was familiar with some of the Norse gods but with The Song of Gesar it was all new. Well, it was unfamiliar. The stories weren’t new—there are only so many stories—and the characters in these stories reminded me constantly of other characters from Norse, Roman, Greek or even British mythology. “All epics share certain characteristics. There are nine generally accepted characteristics of the epic form, which include such things as humanity's interactions with deities, long lists and long speeches.”[5] Let’s take one example to illustrate: the evil uncle trope.

Evil uncles crop up all the time in mythology: Horus fought his evil uncle Set to avenge the death of his father; Osiris; Krishna had an evil uncle, Kamsa, who was destined to die at Krishna's hands; Jason had to locate the Golden Fleece and win back the throne from his evil uncle Pelias; Romulus and Remus were snatched from their mother by an evil uncle who threw them into the River Tiber to drown; Perceval had to retake the Grail Castle from his evil uncle, the King of Castle Mortal—hell, the basic plot of The Lion King is that there is a young prince who has an evil uncle that wants to take power—and there are plenty of examples from history like Richard III so it’s not surprising that the young man who will eventually become Gesar, Joru, would find himself at odds with his uncle Khronthung.

The story begins by looking back to help the reader appreciate why the gods agreed to send Gesar. When the deities ascended to live in Heaven the demons stayed in the world to make trouble. From time to time the gods would send one of their own down to try to help but for some unexplained reason they often made matters worse. So the deities stopped meddling and the demons seemed also to disappear only they didn’t really. Some believed that the demons instead “transformed themselves, perhaps into a beautiful girl or into a tree trunk that gave off the sweet smell of rot.” Finally, however, “they found the perfect hiding-place: the human heart.”

Concerned, the deities eventually sent a monk, Master Lotus, to assess the situation and report back but when he tries he’s told by the Bodhisattva, “There is no need for you to describe what you heard and saw in Gling. We see everything clearly from here, not only that which has already happened but that which is to come.” Oddly enough the monk doesn’t ask, “Why the hell did you bother sending me to them?” but he does ask why they don’t do more to alleviate the suffering of the humans. He receives no good answer. Rather he’s told that he has now accumulated sufficient karmic merits and has been “freed from samsara, the wheel of reincarnation. You will become a deity and take your place in the heavenly court,” and I imagine once that took place he would need ask no more questions; everything would become clear to him. Pity the readers are left out in the cold.

What the deities eventually do is to send one of their own. A young deity called Thosba Gawa volunteers. There is a catch however:

‘[Y]ou must consider it carefully. If you go, you will no longer be a deity. You will be a mortal who suffers misery and hardship from the moment you are born. Are you afraid?’

‘No, I am not.’

‘You may lose your divine qualities and sink into evil ways, as mortals do. Then you will never be able to return to the celestial world.’

The young man’s mother and older sister wept.

‘And you will lose all memories of your life here.’

Seems odd that when the gods themselves have failed they would assign a human as their champion but I’m not a god so what do I know? The deities make a search and decide upon Metog Lhartse the daughter of the Dragon King to bear the child and Senglon, a member of the Mu clan, to be the father. Rather than an archangel it’s Master Lotus who passes on the news to the girl:

‘Virtuous and blessed woman,’ Master Lotus said, ‘Heaven would like to borrow your noble body that you may give birth to a hero who will save Glingkar. No matter what hardship you may encounter in the future, you must hold fast and believe your son will be the king of Glingkar. He may be a stern deity to the demons, but to the black-haired Tibetans, he will be their brave and wise king.’

That Gesar is indeed a messiah figure is well-documented by David-Néel who, in her commentary on the text, refers several times to conversations with Tibetans and other Asians, who predicted to her the “second coming” of the great King Gesar who would drive out the European colonists once and for all. Come to think of it, it’s not that different from Arthurian legend which promises that Arthur will arise when England needs him the most.

From the start it’s very clear, however, that the child is far from an ordinary mortal:

[S]he felt no pain when her son was born, and her heart filled with joy. More wondrous: the baby was the height and weight of a three-year-old. Although it was winter, thunder rolled in the sky, sending down a shower of blossoms. Clouds of many colours surrounded the birthing tent.

[…]

Only Khrothung, head of the Tagrong tribe, kept apart from the festivities.

Apparently Khrothung is normally a comic character in the epic but I didn’t find him particularly so. Perhaps because the whole thing is so caricatured it was hard to take anyone seriously (or, indeed, comically) which is part of the problem I have with texts like this. Also practical little matters like how a woman could possibly survive giving birth to a child of that size.

Despite the fact they realise their son is bound to do great things after calling him Gesar (and the similarity to Ceasar is noteworthy—see this blog entry) they give him the childhood name Joru because, even his mother has to admit: “He is ugly.”

Within three days Khrothung reappeared, smiling, bringing with him cheese and honey. ‘My newborn nephew is already as big as a three-year-old. He will surely grow even faster when he eats the food I offer.’ His words were sweet as honey, but the food was laced with poison powerful enough to kill a yak. Taking the baby in his arms, Khrothung began to feed his nephew.

Joru looked up at him with clear eyes and smiled, then held up his hands to show wisps of dark smoke rising from between his fingers. The powers given to him by Heaven had expelled the poison from his body. In his confusion, Khrothung licked a fragment of fresh cheese stuck to his fingertip. In an instant, he felt as if lightning bolts were lashing him, that his intestines were being tied in knots, and he knew he had been poisoned.

Khrothung stumbled to the river, where he pressed his tongue to the ice for a long time. When at last he could speak, he uttered incantation to summon his friend Mgonpo Redag, a warlock, half human, half demon, who could snatch a living soul and take control of the body. Soon a great raven appeared, whose wings cast a wide shadow on the ground. It tossed the poison’s antidote to Khrothung, who stumbled to his feet as the raven flew off.

In the time it had taken for his uncle to run to the river, Joru had begun to talk.

Then Joru leaves his physical body; his celestial body flies towards Mgonpo Redag and the boy’s first fight takes place. He defeats the demon with ease, then traps his uncle in a cave but in a moment of self-doubt his powers wain and Khrothung manages to escape. And so the story continues:

The epic does not recount any battle scene until after Gesar has proclaimed himself king by virtue of winning a horse-race. From this point on, most of the epic, and almost every canto, involves battle scenes that are cantered on the main story-line. Demons are killed, evils are exterminated, and wise kings are sworn in to rule the states that are subjugated to the Kingdom of Gling. The treasures of the defeated states are distributed among the commoners or taken back to the Kingdom of Gling. Having fought many wars, and with the universe restored to peace, Gesar has fulfilled his mission to Middle Earth. He has saved his mother, his wife, and others from the land of the dead, and he returns to his heavenly world.[6]

00.Gesar_-757x1024

Traditional Thanka of King Gesar

I managed to get about halfway through the book and then gave up. Obviously a book like this has an audience but I’m not sure the general reading public will get very excited over this and even scholars may find themselves disappointed because the epic has been so reduced. Also the songs are presented as prose—this epic is still performed regularly—and I do wonder whether this was the wisest decision. The prosimetric epic medium—a tale in prose with occasional lines of verse—is traditional among the Tibetans:

Usually, the proportion of verse is larger than that of prose. The verses are not a repetition of the prose: they provide their own separate content. The prose sounds very emotive and fluctuates in tone and rhythm. The versification usually follows closely either the widespread glu style or the free style of folk singing; in both styles each verse consists of seven or eight syllables, with occasional exceptions, in a form that is relatively free.[7]

In his review of the Chinese version, Dadui Yao, writes that Alai’s novel “lacks poetry” although he readily admits “[i]t’s not difficult for us to understand why writing King Gesar has tied Alai’s heart in knots for several years.” He adds:

Fiction is instinctual to literature, however, and to limit this instinct signifies nothing less than curtailing the work’s artistry. If he insisted on remaining faithful to this traditional telling, he would inevitably be inhibited by it. But if Alai, a member of this ethnic group, retold the story in less than an ideal manner that fictionalized, distorted or added or cut too much content, then he would be rebuked by readers intimately familiar with the epic.

On the other hand, Alai is like other sgrung (Tibetan for “roaming bard”) who want to recite the story well; where he differs is that he must transmute the epic into a novel. To replace the story, traditionally recited in song, with a novel’s narrative requires transforming oral expression into a written one. Visited by the spirits in his dreams, the sgrung would enter into something akin to a “possessed” state in which his singing, tone of speech, vocabulary, facial expressions, movements and emotions would differ from those of a typical person. In other words, the gap between this performing art and the art of the pure written word is a wide one, so mastering a successful transformation from one to the other is a major challenge.[8]

The more I read about this text the more I realised how much it suffers from lack of annotation. And this was the problem I had with Ragnarok. I appreciated Jeanette Winterson’sWeight: The Myth of Atlas and Heracles a little more but of all the retellings I’ve read recently the ones I probably enjoyed the most were The Dreams of Max and Ronnie and The Meat Tree which were reimaginings of stories from the Mabinogion published by Seren Press. The reason for this is because the authors moved far enough from the original stories for their works to stand on their own. In all of the Canongate versions I’ve read—I’m sure this isn’t all the case—there’s been a definite feeling of a retelling rather than an updating. Shakespeare in modern dress is still as hard to understand as Shakespeare in period costume whereas films like My Own Private Idaho and Scotland, PAmake the text accessible to a modern audience even if much is lost in translation; that’s the challenge, isn’t it? In The Meat Tree, for example, Lewis relocates the storyline to outer space. That’s about as unmythological as you can get. The Song of King Gesar is most definitely set in Tibet a good eight hundred years ago.

This is not to suggest that Alai didn’t put a lot of work into this project. In his own words:

The essence of a re-telling is to render a myth concrete. To re-tell the Epic of King Gesar, I mainly did work in three areas: Firstly, I went into the Tibetan hinterlands to conduct research. King Gesar reflects the state of the Tibetan people from the time of primitive tribal alliances to the birth of a state, that is, the period of history that begins with King Gesar and encompasses the unique nature of Tibetan culture. Although I am a Tibetan writer and in the past I mastered some of this information, it wasn’t nearly enough, so I had to leave my desk for the areas where Tibetans reside.

The second task was to study the epic in depth. For more than a century [the story of] King Gesar has been orally transmitted. But to use contemporary techniques to convey it, there are very many research results, and quite mixed ones, so you have to put a lot of effort into studying and putting them in order.

Thirdly, historical data must be verified. The nation grew from a small one to a big one, and expanded, involving a number of wars. After the passage of such a long time, things must be re-checked.[9]

He was first approached by Canongate in 2003 with a view to tackling the project however the author was in the middle of writing Hollow Mountains, a three-volume realistic work on six Tibetan villagers' fate against the fast-changing rural landscape, at the time but in 2009 the Chinese version appeared and was generally well received. The biggest problem he was faced with was what to leave in and what he could afford to lose. His solution to the problem came in the shape of ballad singer Jigme (Jigmed in Canongate’s version):

"A writer should not be content with books and second-hand information, he must visit the field to find solid details," Alai says.

In his novel, Jigme also journeys across the plateau, doggedly searching for such sacred sites and dreaming of King Gesar's growth from a gifted child to a mighty king.

"The ballad singer dreams of parts of King Gesar's life and comes out to reality. That works like a pair of scissors cutting out the most interesting parts from the colossal epic," Alai says.[10]

In his review of the Chinese version Liu Jun says:

King Gesar looks like a fossil: The meaty parts—glamorous descriptions of battles, attire and witty banter—had to be sacrificed. But Alai does a good job introducing the world's longest (and still growing) epic to the reader.[11]

This is an interesting comment since in his earlier interview with Liu Jun Alai said, "I won't build a 'dinosaur skeleton', or cut my own toes to fit smaller shoes," which is exactly what he’s had to do to make the book manageable and as the goal was to introduce westerners to the Tibetan epic he’s done as good a job as he could. For those whose interests are kindled there’s definitely a growing amount of information available. Researching this article is as far as this particular reader wants to go though.

howard_and_sylvia_resizedAlai wrote his book in Chinese as I’ve said although apparently his native language is rGyalrong. The English translation is the work of Howard Goldblatt and his wife Sylvia Li-chun Lin. Howard is Research Professor at the University of Notre Dame, where he directs the Centre for Asian Studies; Sylvia teaches modern and contemporary Chinese literature, film and culture also at the University of Notre Dame. Both are experienced translators and this is not their only collaboration. As Goldblatt is the translator of Mo Yan, who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2012, there’s a fair bit about him online—one of the most informative is here although it says nothing about Gesar or Alai—but he’s clearly both experienced and highly regarded. There’s not so much about his wife but this article is helpful.

You can read an excerpt from the book here.

***

AlaiAlai, born in 1959 in Sichuan Province, is a Chinese poet and novelist of Rgyalrong Tibetan descendent. He was also editor of Science Fiction World. Alai's notable novel Red Poppies, published in 1998, which follows a family of Tibetan chieftains, the Maichi, during the decade or so before the liberation of Tibet by the People's Liberation Army in 1951. It was the first major literary novel by a Tibetan about Tibet. Red Poppies was rejected by numerous Chinese publishers for a number of years due to its sensitive political content. It finally made its way to China's prestigious People's Literature Publishing House, where an editor championed its publication. The novel was an immediate bestseller in China and was awarded the nation's highest literary award, the Mao Dun Prize. In America, it was selected as one of the 100 best books of the year by the Los Angeles Times Book Review and was a finalist for the Kiriyama Prize.


 

FURTHER READING


Transcription of a television interview from 2008: part one , part two

Geoffrey Samuel, ‘The Gesar Epic of East Tibet’, Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre, pp.358-367

Xu Bin, 'The Application and Cultural Understanding of the Epic Gesar Images in Rites', China Tibetology Magazine

Wang Guoming trans. Li Xianting, ‘The Tuzu Gesar Epic: Performance and Singers’, Oral Tradition, 25/2 (2010), pp.381-390

Kurtis Schaeffer etc eds., ‘The Epic of King Gesar’, Sources of Tibetan Tradition, pp.309-318

Gregory Forgues, ‘Materials for the Study of Gesar Practices’

Zhambei Gyaltsho, Bab Sgrung: Tibetan Epic Singers’, Oral Tradition, 16/1 (2001), pp.280-293
 

REFERENCES


[1] Liu Jun, ‘Long Live the King’, China Daily 30 March 2009

[2]Ibid

[3]'Young Ballad Singers Keep World's Longest Epic Alive', eastday.com, 27 July 2002

[4] Xinhua, 'Gesar folk artists promote world's longest epic', China Tibet Online, 13 April 2009

[5] Robin Kornman, Lama Chonam, The Epic of Gesar of Ling: Gesar's Magical Birth, Early Years, and Coronation as King, p.xvi

[6] Yang Enhong, ‘On the Study of the Narrative Structure of Tibetan Epic: A Record of King Gesar, Oral Tradition, 16/2 (2001), pp.297, 298

[7]Ibid, p.299

[8] David Yao, ‘Modern-day Karma of a Re-told Epic’ (translated by Bruce Humes)

[9] Alai quoted in Tian Guo, ‘King Gesar: Tibetan Culture’s Calling Card’, China Publishing Today (translated by Bruce Humes)

[10] Liu Jun, ‘The king and I’, China Daily, 7 September 2009

[11] Liu Jun, ‘A novel of epic proportions’, China Daily, 28 October 2011

The Pure Gold Baby

$
0
0

The Pure Gold Baby

I think Jess is looking for meaning where there isn’t any. She’s just a bit too inventive about causation. I’m more resigned to the random and the pointless than Jess. – Margaret Drabble, The Pure Gold Baby



I didn’t expect to like this book. Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t set out with any agenda and had very few preconceptions but I still didn’t expect to like the book. I didn’t love it but I did like it and by liking it I don’t mean that I didn’t hate it; I actually enjoyed reading it; I looked forward to the next day when I could pick it up again; I wanted to know what was going to happen next; I invested something of myself in the book. After I’d finished reading it I was talking to my wife about it as I often do—trying to get my ducks in a row before beginning to write my review—and one of the things I said to her was that nothing really happened in it to which she replied, “Well, you like that kind of book normally,” and she’s right, I do. Of course stuff does happen—lots of stuff—but it’s all very ordinary stuff even though it happens to people who in real life I would probably have little in common with. And yet a connection was made. And it kept my attention to the very end which despite there being a couple of wobbles along the way that might’ve made this a very different read ended pretty much as I expected and quietly at that. `

I knew ofDrabble before I picked up The Pure Gold Baby—I had her pegged as a ‘woman author who writes women's books’ or perhaps an intelligent woman who writes intelligent books aimed at other women—but I’d read nothing else by her and I’d read next to nothing about her latest offering beforehand (and what little I had I’d already forgotten when I opened it) but I still didn’t expect to be the book’s ideal reader despite the fact I’m probably more in touch with my feminine side than most blokes. Nevertheless I approached it with an open mind.

Although called The Pure Gold Baby—Anna is the pure gold baby—the book is more about her mother, Jess. It’s narrated by one of her friends—Jess is at the centre of a small circle of friends who actually manage to stay friends from the sixties right through to the present day—and a friend who is privy to all sorts of details about Jess’s life including a lot of the time what’s she’s thinking. At the end of the book Jess’s friend, who remains nameless for a long time, writes by way of explanation:

I haven’t invented much. I’ve speculated, here and there, I’ve made up bits of dialogue, but you can tell when I’ve been doing that, because it shows. I’ve known Jess a long time, and I’ve known Anna all her life, but there will be things I have got wrong, things I have misinterpreted. Jess and I talk a lot, but we don’t tell each other everything. There are things in my life of which she knows nothing, and she has her secrets too.

Had that paragraph not been there I would’ve accused Drabble of bad writing but even bearing in mind what the friend says there’s just a little too much detail in the accounts and I don’t simply say this because I’m not crazy about lengthy descriptions but because whenever I read them I kept trying to imagine Jess describing the events to her friend and no one but no one would include as much often trivial detail; they would cut to the chase; they would say, “We had a bottle of fizzy water,” not a bottle of San Pellegrino as in this excerpt:

s-pel-bottleIn the restaurant just off Queen Square, Raoul and Jessica talked about the Lebanon and the Sudan and Mongolia. (We don’t use those definite articles now.) They ate fusilli and farfalle and drank a bottle of San Pellegrino. They spoke of Steve Carter, who had retreated to the comfort of the Wendy House, but had found no comfort there, or thereafter. They spoke of Zain and his long heroic journey north from the oasis. They spoke of Dr Nicholls and R. D. Laing. They spoke of phantom pain in missing limbs, and of the neurology of the traumatised bladder. They spoke of Sylvie and her son Joshua. They had a lot to talk about.

Perhaps they spoke of me, their obliging facilitator, but if they did, Jess did not report it.

The friend is called Eleanor and she’s old enough to have a bus pass as she’s writing this and yet her recollections are always most precise which I find a tad unbelievable because as Eleanor herself notes:

As we grow older, our tenses and our sense of chronology blur. We can no longer remember the correct sequence of events. The river is flowing, but we don’t know on which bank we stand, or which way it flows. From birth, or from death. The water and the land merge. We lose our sextant, we follow the wrong compass. The trick of proleptic memory, towards the end of life, confuses us. The trope of déjà vu becomes indistinguishable from shock, sensation, revelation, epiphany, surprise. It is hard to live in, or even to recall, an unforeseen moment.

Granted she does repeat herself from time to time in that absentminded way old people do but I would’ve liked her to get more confused over the facts. So, although Eleanor writes with a sense of assuredness—I was going to say ‘writes with a sure foot’—and she’s clearly a bright and articulate woman I’m not sure we can necessarily trust her account one hundred percent, but that doesn’t really matter because she actually misses out so much about Jess and Anna that, in the end, they still didn’t feel like completely fleshed-out individuals but proxies, excuses for the author—Drabble this time, not Eleanor—to muse on bigger issues, the state of the country and in particular the state of mental health care in the UK. Anna is the chief pawn here but (wisely I think) Drabble also ropes in other characters with various mental health issues to enable her to widen her discussion. Jane Shilling in her review in The Guardian called the book “a novel of themes, rather than character” and that, for me, hits the nail on the head.

Jess’s story is a simple enough one. She moves from the north to London, falls pregnant as a young student to a forty-four-year-old she refers to simply as “the Professor” although as it happens he was only ever a doctor which is what Jess herself becomes, a Doctor of Anthropology. The baby is a little girl, Anna, but her father takes no real interest in either of them. He had been willing to pay for an abortion but as Jess declines he ends up basically paying her off with an odd amount:

‘He gave me some money,’ said Jess. ‘I made him cancel the abortion and the clinic, but he insisted on giving me some money when he left. He gave me £1,325 precisely, he paid me off with £1,325. That was a lot of money in those days. I was going to invest it for Anna. He called himself a Marxist, you know, but I think he came from quite a grand family. I did invest it at first, but then I thought it was more sensible to use it as a deposit to buy this house, so I did. I had some from my father too, but it was his money that made me think of it, that made it possible.’

The house is in London and most of the action—I use the term loosely (no car chases here)—takes place, in places that are just names to me: Bloomsbury, Tottenham Court Road, the (apparently) “timeless” Russell Square and Gordon Square and Bedford Square. Bloomsbury is, it seems, notable for its array of garden squares; so says Wikipedia.

What exactly is wrong with Anna is never made clear. Lots of mental ailments are mentioned—a couple I’d never even heard of—but if there is anywhere that Eleanor states for the record this is what’s up with Anna then I’m sorry I missed it. Anna is … now we have to tread carefully here … the current most politically-correct term would be ‘a special needs child’ I suspect. She’s feebleminded, simple, but she doesn’t appear to have any physical issues apart from clumsiness which rules out Down’s Syndrome. She’s fond of lists but that’s about it.

a_is_for_annaPicture books and stories she loved, particularly repetitive stories and nursery rhymes with refrains, which she could memorise word for word, and repeat back, expressively, and with a fine grasp of content, to her mentors. ‘Sing a Song of Sixpence’, ‘Polly, Put the Kettle On’, ‘Curly Locks’ and ‘Incey Wincey Spider’ were part of her considerable repertoire. But letters remained a mystery. She learnt to draw A for Anna, but produced it in a wobbly and uneven hand, and was slow to get to grips with n.

[…]

Anna knows her alphabet by heart, and can recite it as correctly as Jess, but its higher uses still remain largely mysterious to her.

At the end of the day it doesn’t matter. The bottom line is that she’s dependent on adults and will continue to be dependent on them for her entire life:

There was no suggestion … that Anna would be a normal child. She would be what she would be—a millstone, an everlasting burden, a pure gold baby, a precious cargo to carry all the slow way through life to its distant and as yet unimaginable bourne on the shores of the shining lake.

Considering the fact she is the pure gold baby, as I’ve said, we don’t really see that much of Anna. She’s there, she’s always there, if only on the end of a phone, and she and her mother are inseparable for years:

Anna remained intimate with her mother, shadowing her closely, responding to every movement of her body and mind, approving her every act. Necessity was clothed with a friendly and benign garment, brightly patterned, soft to the touch, a nursery fabric that did not age with the years.

Eventually, however, a suitor appears in the guise of Bob:

The chap [Jess] found, without too much difficulty and after one or two more unsatisfactory overtures and experiments, wasn’t a neighbourhood man at all. There was nothing incestuous or even adulterous about him. He was new blood. He was half American, and he had long black curly hair, a hairy chest, and very smooth gleaming brown shoulders. He beautifully combined the hairy and the smooth. He had a child of his own from a previous marriage, but he’d left his wife and child behind in Chicago. He was divorced, and seemed keen to marry Jess. He was exactly the same age as Jess, take a couple of months. He was an ethnologist and a photographer, quite successful, and he took life lightly. He was a populist, and he made Jess laugh. Jess found his eagerness in itself seductive. Why not? He was an American citizen and he didn’t need a passport to settle in England. He didn’t try to borrow money from her. He wasn’t serious, but that seemed to Jess at that stage in her life to be an advantage. She was prepared to give him a try, to have a marital fling, and see how it worked out. Anna was for life, but Bob needn’t be. If it didn’t work out, never mind.

As it happens Bob isn’t for life, not as a husband anyway, but there’s no huge falling out; they stay friends and are still friends at the end of the book. Although wary of him at first he soon gets absorbed in the group along with Eleanor, Jim and Katie, Michael and Naomi, Maroussia, Steve (the group’s “own depressed poet”), Sylvie and Rick Raven and their hordes of children most of whom become pretty interchangeable if I’m being honest, just one of the gang:

‘Jim is married to Katie, Jim is Katie’s husband, Katie is Jim’s wife, Becky is their daughter, Nicky is their daughter, Ben is their son, Ben is Becky and Nicky’s sister, Jane is Ben’s aunt. Sylvie’s sons are called Stuart and Josh. Tim’s dad is called Jeremy.’ Anna enjoyed these listings. And she was happy to add the name of Bob, a name which in itself appealed to her through its round simplicity. ‘Bob!’ she would say, proudly, making the twinned consonants bounce from her lips like balloons. ‘Bob is married to Mum. Bob is Mum’s husband, Bob is my Step Dad.’ The phrase ‘step dad’ also pleased her. Its monosyllables were cheerful, like coloured bricks.

We get to watch this lot grow over the years and the world grow (and in some cases shrink) around them. Jess is a good choice in this regard because of her chosen career:

She was an anthropologist by disposition and by training and by trade, and she managed to earn a modest living from these shifts and scribblings. She wrote quickly, easily, at an academic or at a popular level. She became an armchair, study-bound, library-dependent anthropologist. An urban anthropologist, though not in the modern meaning of that term.

although at time you’d think it was Eleanor who was the anthropologist; I guess some of our friends’ traits rub off on all of us over time. You’ll notice that Eleanor comments on the expression “urban anthropologist” and its changing meaning. She does that a lot, words that have fallen out of use—simpleton, chorea, Mongolism—and new words or at least words that have been repurposed—downsizing, cohort, partner—and it’s a simple and effective way to remind us that the world is not what it used to be, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. And looking at the changes in the mental health system we see that just as things can improve they can also get worse again albeit a different kind of worse to the way things once were. Halliday Hall is a good example of this. Early on in the book Eleanor writes:

Halliday Hall in Essex was a new 1960s therapeutic unit housed in a refurbished wing of an old purpose-built mid-nineteenth-century institution which occupied the site of an eighteenth-century manor and farmhouse called Troutwell. There were still vestiges of the old farm buildings standing, though the manor house had long gone. (From potato farm to funny farm, that had been one of the old jokes.)

[…]

Pioneering work into the causes of mental defect had been done there in the old asylum in the early twentieth century, in the days when politicians and statisticians and eugenicists had publicly worried that the swelling numbers of the mentally subnormal would overwhelm the normal population, and sought (though not through infanticide or Swedish programmes of compulsory sterilisation) to counter this falsely perceived tendency.

Halliday Hall is, however, eventually closed down on grounds of cost and by the end of the book the place has fallen into disrepair:

The asylum that had housed Halliday Hall … has succumbed to time. It has been invaded by squatters and subjected to arson. Some of its buildings are listed and therefore cannot be demolished, but it cannot be developed either. It stands, a vast monument to institutional paralysis, to the inertia of mind and matter to which a campaigning and reforming minister of health called Enoch Powell had referred way back in 1962. It is a brownfield site awaiting a revelation, a new world order. All the optimism that built it has drained away. Someone has written in huge red dripping bleeding letters upon an inner corridor wall MY WOUNDS CRY 4 THE GRAVE. This is a fine biblical message of despair. Unplumbed sinks and baths and lavatories stand around, as though construction or renovation had been arbitrarily halted one day as funds ran out.

[…]

There is a newish lavatory bowl, still swathed in its dirty builder’s yard Lazarus bandages. It stands alone, like a throne, in a derelict courtyard.

[…]

It reminds Jess of something she has seen, long ago, and it comes to her that in Africa, all those many years ago when she was young, the anthropologists had been shown just such a bowl, standing surreal and abandoned on a concrete platform on a little brownish grassy African slope by a giant anthill. It had never been, would never be, installed. There was no need for it, no call for it. It was a symbol.

five_toilets_in_field

The book is full of symbols like this but for me the one that will haunt me the longest is this one:

A proleptic flash. I think this happened about ten years ago, perhaps fifteen years ago, long after that visit to plague-stricken Marsh Court, but it comes back to me vividly now, and in that context, in the context of remembering the sick schoolchildren. I was sitting on the top of the No. 7 bus, on the front seat at the right, travelling along Oxford Street. We had just passed Selfridges, that’s when I saw him.

He was sitting on the opposite pavement, on a bench, holding a large placard, with homemade letters that were easy to read from the top deck where I sat. They said MUM IS DEAD.

He had a cap by him, for offerings.

The words rent my heart.

MUM IS DEAD.

We are familiar with the concept that God is dead. We accepted it long, long ago. The message that mum is dead is more powerful.

Prolepsis is another thread that runs through the book: foreshadowing, preconceptions. It was a new term to me and it’s not the easiest to grasp. How, for example, can you have a proleptic flash looking back ten years? Or maybe the flash was what happened on the bus, a glimpse into one possible future. One day all our mums will die and most of us will have to go on without them. Anna most certainly will have to go on without hers. Horrible to envisage her sitting in the street like that.

Schopenhauer said (and I'm paraphrasing here), he said that once a man reaches a certain point he should be able to look at his life and it should read like a well-crafted novel, that everything that happened had to happen exactly the way it did.” (Believe it or not I’m actually quoting from the TV show Shattered here.) Real lives don’t have plots but looking back it’s hard not to imagine plot points to read a little foreshadowing into events that in reality are nothing but coincidences. So there’s an unplumbed toilet pan sitting somewhere in Africa. Maybe it doesn’t mean anything at all. Not everything comes with a meaning attached. But what is the point to a life lived without meaning? Novels don’t need plots—which is good because this one has a very thin plot—but they do need points; sometimes, as in the case here, the point is actually a question mark because we’re not left with the answer to the meaning of life but it’s hard not to look back on our own lives and wonder. I think why this book chimed with me was that it focuses on decades that were important to me even though I’m a good ten years younger than the main players here and twenty years younger than Drabble. I’m not sure a younger person would appreciate the nuances but then I’m not sure youngsters are a part of Drabble’s demographic.

Looking back on this article I see I’ve quoted quite a bit from the book, possibly a bit more than one ought under the “fair use” rule but the reason is obvious: she’s eminently quotable. There are some authors—Jeanette Winterson is one—who, it doesn’t matter what they’re talking about, it’s just a pleasure to hear them string words together. Well, Drabble’s in that league and I’m very tempted to see what else she has. The Millstone is probably her best known work. First published in 1965 it’s about an unmarried young academic who becomes pregnant after a one-night stand and, against all odds, decides to give birth to her child and raise it herself. Just like Jess in The Pure Gold Baby. Maybe give that one a miss then although a part of me is curious to see how she would’ve handled the material at the time and without the benefit of hindsight. Or what about Jerusalem the Golden in which Clara, another northern girl, wins a scholarship and heads to London and yearns to become part of the smart, arty London set? Definitely a bit of a theme here. Or I might just wait and see what she writes next.

***

Margaret-Drabble-007Margaret Drabble was born June 5, 1939 in Sheffield, Yorkshire, England. Her father, John Frederick Drabble, was a barrister, a county court judge and a novelist. Author A.S. Byatt is her older sister.

She attended the Mount School, York, a Quaker boarding-school, and was awarded a major scholarship to Newnham College, Cambridge, where she read English and received double honours. After graduation she joined the Royal Shakespeare Company at Stratford during which time she understudied for Vanessa Redgrave.

In 1960 she married her first husband, actor Clive Swift, best known for his role as the henpecked husband in the BBC television comedy Keeping Up Appearances, with whom she had three children in the 1960's; they divorced in 1975. She subsequently married the biographer Michael Holroyd in the early 1980's. They live in London and also have a house in Somerset.

Her novel The Millstone won the John Llewelyn Rhys Prize and she was the recipient of a Society of Author's Travelling Fellowship in the mid-1960's. She also received the James Tait Black and the E.M. Forster awards. She was awarded the CBE in 1980 and she was promoted to Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE) in the 2008 Birthday Honours.

She is often described as being the author one should read to get a clear view of what it's like to live in England. This is true not only because of her non-fiction books For Queen and Country and A Writer's Britain but also for her novels. The English personalities of her characters are tangible in her novels which, through the decades, have also reflected the dramatic political, economic and social changes that have taken place in Great Britain.

Docherty and The Kiln

$
0
0

No trains stopped here. Yet they went on waiting. […] It couldn’t go on. But it went on. – William McIlvanney, Docherty

DLF-william-mcilvanneyWe’ve known since 2012 that Canongate were planning to republish William McIlvanney’s fiction back catalogue. They made a start last year with Laidlaw, which sold in the tens of thousands, followed quickly by the next two books in the trilogy; there’s even talk (finally!) of a TV adaptation[1] and “McIlvanney has also spoken of plans to write a fourth instalment”[2] but I’m not holding my breath. As the “the godfather of tartan noir[3] (not a term he himself coined or even appreciates that much[4]) a lot of people will be pleased to see that. 2014 sees the rest of his novels come back into print including (arguably) his greatest work, Docherty. As part of Book Week Scotland, the Scottish Book Trust asked the public to vote for their favourite Scottish novel of the last fifty years and Docherty came in at number 10.[5] Top of the list was Trainspotting. It’s interesting that Irvine Welsh in his foreword to Ron Butlin’sThe Sound of My Voice ranked Docherty as one of the top five most critically well-regarded Scottish novels since the 1970s. It’s not a competition though; who said Scotland’s only entitled to one literary landmark? We’re Scottish, for God’s sake—we don’t do things by halves.

 

Docherty

DochertyOstensibly about one man, Tam Docherty, a miner at the beginning of the twentieth century, Docherty’s focus expands to encompass his whole family, then the High Street, the town of Graithnock, Ayrshire and ultimately it reaches out towards the maze of trenches in France with ridiculous British names like Strathcona Walk and Finchley Road that long ago were filled in and have vanished under grass fields and poppies. Docherty is William McIlvanney’s ode to the human spirit. I originally wrote ‘elegy’ but the human spirit’s not dead; not yet—it’s just not what it once was. Where there’s life there’s hope, though.

Tam and his youngest son Conn, born in the book’s prologue in 1903, vie for the reader’s attention right from the opening chapter; the rest of the family have their moments in the spotlight but this is feels at times like a two-hander between father and son, one whose star is in the ascendant, the other whose future he sees mapped out in the life of his own aging father, Old Conn, and which is inevitable. The book is about a name, it’s about what it means to be a Docherty. And in Graithnock at the turn of the century being a Docherty meant something, a bit like being a Corleone in Palermo about the same time only Tam is no Godfather.

On a train journey about halfway through the novel the perspective shifts as it does often throughout the book and settles on young Conn for a moment:

When some of [the men] got seats for his mother and Kathleen [the family’s only daughter] and his grandfather, and recognised his father, Conn felt suddenly taller to think that he had connections with them. Their conversation fell on him like a magic formula releasing itself into him.

‘It couldny be Tam Docherty.’

‘Hell it couldny by onybody else. Tam Docherty.’

The name rippled among a few of them, causing looks Conn couldn’t understand at the time, that lens-adjustment by which the blurred hearsay of the past is crystallised into present fact.

That it happens to be set in Scotland is by the by—you could shift the action to Wales or Nova Scotia or Sicily (they have coal mines there) and it would still work—but by having his characters speak in their natural Ayrshire brogue McIlvanney extracts all the colour he can from the bleakest of lives. McIlvanney, in his novel The Kiln—which focuses on Conn’s son, also called Tam (at least by his parents)—describes Scots as “English in its underwear,” and adds, quite rightly:

Scottish vocabulary is like a fifth column operating within the sonorous pomposity of English, full of renegade plosives and gutturals that love to dismantle pretentions.

Conn despairs of English. There’s a point where he writes down things he couldn’t find any English equivalents for:

When something sad had happened and his mother was meaning that there wasn’t anything you could do about it, she would say ‘ye maun dree yer weird’. When she was busy, she had said she was ‘saund-papered tae a whippet.’ ‘Pit a rake roan the fire.’ ‘Hand-cuffed to Mackindoe’s ghost.’ ‘A face tae follow a flittin’.’ If his father had to give him a row but wasn’t really angry, he said ‘Ah’ll skelp yer bum wi’ a tea-leaf tae yer nose bluids.’

and he gets in trouble with his teacher over his refusal at one point to use the King’s English.

Writing in dialect is always problematic and there are cases both for and against. In his defence McIlvanney says:

I think if you disenfranchise people from their own speech you take a bit of their head away as well, you disenfranchise them from their own experience to some extent.[6]

He’s also noted elsewhere that the lower down the social ladder you get, the more metaphorical, the more idiomatic and, quite bluntly, the more poetic the language gets. The High Street of Graithnock is the last place you’ve expect to hear poetry and yet even the most mundane everyday expressions come dusted with it. And yet it’s not only the dialogue that’s rich in imagery. From an interview with Bram E. Gieben:

“I’ve always believed in images,” [McIlvanney] says with firm conviction. “I write in an imagistic way because I think that an image is a very succinct way of putting across a meaning; and it’s also a very democratic way of doing it. We all understand images.” I put it to him that this is the essence of good writing, but he rebuffs my point with self-deprecating humour. “You would have to tell me what the essence of writing is—I just write the stuff, I don’t know.” He smiles again.

“To me it feels like the essence is that it’s concrete. I love concretion, I love not getting airy fairy, and I think images keep you nailed to the earth.[7]

I can’t imagine anyone other than a Scot writing this book. It sometimes feels like there’s hardly a sentence in the book that doesn’t contain a metaphor or a simile and to be honest if most other writers tried to pull this off they’d fall flat on their faces. An example: a respectable middle-class family walk down the High Street; the Dochertys are sitting outside and the man happens to pat Conn on the head:

Looking up, Conn felt his father's hand fit tightly, like a helmet, over his head.

And his father's voice cleft the calmness of hi's play like a lightning-flash.

‘Why don't ye bring fuckin' cookies wi' ye? An' then you could throw them tae us!’

Conn's mother hissed, ‘Tam’'

Immediately Conn had a feeling he would forget but would experience again. It was a completely familiar and secure happening transformed instantly into something foreign and frightening. He saw and heard but couldn't understand…

Some of the dust of that brief, explosive moment settled on Conn for good.

We can see how Conn is affected by what happens here in his reactions when his teacher chides him for his use of Ayrshire Scots (that they would squabble about the word ‘gutter’ is obviously significant) and similarly with their neighbour, Miss Gilfillan, who takes a shine to Conn and tries—half-heartedly admittedly—to make a gentleman out of him but he’s having none of it:

He was going to be a man like his father ... because to be that would include all … other ambitions. The feeling suffused him like a passion...

Docherty is also, despite its subject matter, a surprisingly funny book. The humour is often deadpan or dry and frequently self-deprecatory. As Beckett wrote, “Nothing is funnier than unhappiness.”[8] And as many nameless others have noted, “You’ve got to laugh.” If you don’t you’ll cry.

Of course it’s a political novel too—and he has a fair bit to say about religion—but I can’t say I ever felt McIlvanney was beating me about the head and neck with his own beliefs. No doubt he had an agenda—don’t we all?—and he has been accused of “dogmatic tub-thumping ‘social realism’”[9]—but the book’s bigger than that. If anything he’s very restrained. The same goes for The Kiln. In fact the best example of McIlvanney’s biting his tongue comes from it. His opinions regarding Thatcherism are no big secret—in his (in)famous ‘Stands Scotland Where It Did?’ lecture in the 1980s he "actually dared to suggest that Thatcher wanted to wipe Scotland as a set of values and ideas off the map, and reduce us to geography"[10]—and yet he devotes a single sentence to the Iron Lady: “One woman with all the vision of a soldier ant, had managed to screw up the UK.” It would’ve been unrealistic to write about being a miner in the 1900’s without politics rearing its ugly head. Most of the politics in Docherty, however, takes place off the page to be honest. An eleven week strike is covered in a couple of sentences:

I write from an attempt to perceive the truth, and politics are part of that truth. Writing a novel, I’m not constantly thinking of politics. The politics comes out of writing the novel, it isn’t that the novel comes out of the politics. When I write a novel, I try to write as honestly as I can about the life I see around me. The compulsion to write came before I was politically aware. As a spin off from a desire to understand the nature of experience come political convictions.[11]

Graithnock is a fictitious place in name only. It’s really Kilmarnock where McIlvanney was born—“the street names are the same, the public buildings are the same, the park, the river, the rural surroundings, the now closed pits, all the same”[12]—and if you have any doubts about that he tells you how to drive there from Glasgow in his novel Strange Loyaltiesalthough the High Street in Kilmarnock I remember from the sixties and seventies is a far cry from the High Street at the centre of Docherty, a place redolent with poverty; the poorest of the poor eke out a living on High Street:

High Street, both as a terrain and a population was special. Everyone whom circumstances had herded into its hundred-or-so-yards had failed in the same way. It was a penal colony for those who had committed poverty, a vice which was usually hereditary

The Cross Kilmarnock

Graith is an old Scottish word. In an article on the Scottish Language Centre’s website they have this to say about it:

“GRAITH n equipment, wherewithal”

Graith comes from Old Norse. We find it occasionally used in English in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries but it is predominantly found in Scots, where it is still in use today, often in the sense of tools, hence this piece of practical advice from Neil Munro in The Looker-On: “A man should ha’e all his workin’ graith aboot him before he starts on a roof for a job o’ ony kind”.

In English then, Tooltown, I suppose (Tool Hill would be more accurate), but I’d expect a place with a name like that to be home to Bob the Builder and Postman Pat to be honest. Graithnock is a hard-sounding word where life is hard work and only those with the wherewithal to live “a pot of soup away from hunger” survive. There really is no English equivalent although the northerners—whom most Scots regard as cousins—will know where we’re coming from.

The book opens in 1903 with the birth of Tam and Jenny’s fourth child and third son, Cornelius:

The name seemed to drown him, like regal robes on a midget. The doctor sipped [his whisky].

“That’s a terrible size of a name for such a wee fellow.”

“He’ll grow tae fit it. Don’t you worry.”

Over the next three hundred and fifty pages or so we do indeed see Conn as he becomes known grow from an infant into a strong sixteen-year-old who, despite the fact his father would’ve wished anything else for him but can’t afford to do a damn thing about it, ends up down the mine with his father and his brother, Angus. Mick, the other brother, goes off to war. So it’s also a coming of age novel, in more ways than one.

There’s no real story to Docherty. Although fictional the novel reads like a memoir dipping into the lives of Tam, his family, neighbours and friends here and there at key moments in their lives from 1903 through 1919. Indeed the book could easily have been called The Dochertys were it not for abiding presence of the family’s patriarch. At five foot four he would never have been described as a big man but he is a hard man—“in High Street the most respected measurement of a man tended to be round the chest”—albeit a hard man with a soft centre. He is, as are many of his peers, a man of principle:

'Ah'll tell ye the sense,' Tam said. 'We walk a nerra line. Ah ken hoo nerra it is. Ah've walked it a' ma days. Us an' folk like us hiv goat the nearest thing tae nothin' in this world. A' that filters doon tae us is shite. We leeve in the sewers o' ither bastards' comfort. The only thing we've goat is wan anither. That's why ye never sell yer mates. Because there's nothin' left tae buy wi' whit ye get. That's why ye respect yer weemenkind. Because whit we make oorselves is whit we are. Because if ye don't, ye're provin' their case. Because the bastards don't believe we're folk! They think we're somethin' ... less than that. Well, Ah ken whit Ah believe. It's only us that can show whit folk are. Whit dae they ken aboot it? Son, it's easy tae be guid oan a fu' belly. It's when a man's goat two bites an' wan o' them he'll share, ye ken whit he's made o'. Maist o' them were boarn blin'. Well, we areny, son. We canny afford tae be blin'. Listen. In ony country in the world, who are the only folk that ken whit it's like tae leeve in that country? The folk at the boattom. The rest can a' kid themselves oan. They can afford to hiv fancy ideas. We canny, son. We loass the wan idea o' who we are, we're deid. We're wan anither. Tae survive, we'll respect wan anither. When the time comes, we'll a' move forward thegither, or nut at all.’

Docherty is about family in the broadest sense and family’s everything to Tam, his “one oasis”:

He saw families as little fortresses of loyalty and sanity and mutual concern, set defiantly in a landscape of legalised looting and social injustice.

But times are changing and so is his family. After the upheaval of World War I the whole world begins to change and as strong as he is there’s nothing Tam can do to but batten down the hatches and hope to wait out the winds of change. Don’t get me wrong, he wants change, he believes in change, in some respects the only thing that keeps him going is trusting that change is coming but he’s still not quite ready for it:

“Ah’ve been waitin’. That’s whit Ah’ve been daein’. Ah’ve kept somethin’ alive that they’ve been tryin’ tae kill. An’ that’s ma joab. Tae deny them evey day o’ ma life. Tae show them they can neither brek us nor buy us. Fur oor time’s comin’.”

Tam Docherty may not be an educated man but he is a thinking man. He’s like the Jew who’s been looking for the Messiah all his life but when Jesus turns up on his doorstep fails to recognise him and goes on waiting. Change too often comes from unexpected quarters and shuffles forward so slowly that it’s hard to notice any movement at all. Tam himself is actually an agent of such change. He was brought up as a Catholic but married a Protestant girl. His eldest two get sent to the Catholic School and the other two to the High Street state school. His reason? “It’s nearer,” was all he said when pressed.

As I’ve said this is a novel that jumps about through the lives of the Dochertys and so it presents a selective—as opposed to idealised—picture of what life was like back then:

In that harsh climate people developed certain characteristics common to them all. Where so little was owned, sharing became a precautionary reflex. The only security they could have was one another. Most things were borrowable, from a copper for the gas to a black suit for funerals.

So: identity, family, community. In that order.

If I was to label it I’d say the novel was a work of sentimental realism which sounds disparaging but it’s not intended to be. I look back on the seventies—when McIlvanney was writing Docherty—with genuine affection. It was a bleak time in British history but it was where I grew up—it was my time—and it’s impossible not to dwell on the good stuff even though it’s difficult to completely shrug off the bad stuff. Twenty-three years older than me McIlvanney feels the same about the fifties: “I think the fifties get an unjustifiably bad press,” he writes “The surface greyness of the fifties was like a patina on good metal: if you polish it, you'll see there's something there.”[13] (This is what he does in The Kiln which I’ll get to in a minute.) Clearly the same can be said about the early 1900’s. It is possible to be nostalgic without becoming mawkish.

So, yes, Tam is presented as something of a working class hero—McIlvanney admitted as much when he said his novel was “an attempt to democratise traditional culture, to give working-class life the vote in the history of heroism”[14]—but he’s also a flawed character and as time goes on his flaws become harder to ignore especially at home when his guard is down. Only Conn, the youngest, still clings to the pedestal on which his father stands desperate for him not to topple. He’s certainly no rebel, not politically anyway; if anything Tam could be accused of being a conformist unlike his sons Mick and Angus who both in turn square up to him and are disappointed to see their father back down. He makes a lot of noise but that’s about it. To be fair Tam’s not a fighting man—by that I mean he never goes looking for a fight (unlike his son, Angus)—but he also never walked away from one no matter what the size of his opponent.

StrangeLoyaltiesIn Strange Loyalties, Jack Laidlaw describes Tam Docherty as “a legend in Graithnock before we were born, a street-fighter for justice”[15] As can be seen from the scene on the train even within his own lifetime Tam was lionised by his peers and yet McIlvanney doesn’t present much evidence to justify his heroic status other than the fact that people need heroes and they’ll kluge them together from whatever’s available. The miners go on strike at one point but there’s no indication that Tam was at the front bolstering the troops. He did his bit, showed solidarity but when the bosses refused to back down he, like the rest, tucked his tail between his legs and trudged back to work. What confrontations we do get to witness are nothing to write home about like the time he beats up a man for peeking into a neighbour’s window.

What he is is a man. When you have nothing to speak of how do you measure your worth? If you’re a woman it’s probably all to do with fertility; good childbearing hips may not have been a sign of beauty in the traditional sense but they are nevertheless a means of measurement available to all. If you’re male it’s by how much of a man you are and what it means to be a man hasn’t really changed for hundreds of years. Only in recent times has the notion of honour started to lose meaning. I wonder if there’s still honour amongst thieves. Tam Docherty is a decent bloke. William McIlvanney’s a decent bloke. They have values. (Just think about the word for a minute.) That used to be the measure of a man. Strength has always been a consideration but no one idolises a bully no matter how much they may kowtow to him.

The problem McIlvanney faced was how to end a book like this. Or to be more precise where to end it. What we’re witnessing is the end of a generation but most generations fade in and out; there’s rarely a sharp cut-off point (the Sixties, for example, probably ended somewhere around 1972). He could, of course, have presented us with Tam Docherty standing like some old Communist statue staring into the future convinced that better days are coming or he could’ve left him like Vladimir or Estragon or ‎Greyfriars Bobby blindly waiting because anything else would mean giving up. What he chooses was an act of … I’m going to call it redemption. It’s a popular trope: good guy turns bad and then at the last minute does the right thing (think Darth Vader in Star Warsas a classic example). Tam, of course, doesn’t give in to the dark side but he does lose something along the way; as I noted above, his fight becomes bluster. But something happens and life offers him one last chance to be the hero and he jumps at it—literally. What was he thinking? We’ll never know. And when people don’t know stuff they make it up. Just look at Robin Hood.

 

The Kiln

TheKilnBut what of Tam Docherty’s legacy? Change comes but is it the kind of change he would’ve hoped for or approved of? That question gets addressed in McIlvanney’s sequel, The Kiln. The book focuses on Conn’s son. Tam would’ve loved his son to get an education. Unfortunately he doesn’t live long enough to see his grandson not only go to secondary school but to university and his great-granddaughter to Oxford, no less, to undertake postgraduate research. At the beginning of Docherty McIlvanney writes:

There was a real High Street. This isn’t it but this is meant in part to be an acknowledgement of the real one. For that reason I was to make it clear that at no point are any of the people in this book identifiable with actual people who lived there. But I hope there survives in the book some of the spirit with which those people imbued the place.

What he says at the beginning of The Kiln, however, is:

‘At the moment of writing the author is fictive. Only the story is real.’ – Tom Docherty

This is a very different book and I couldn’t help but being a little disappointed with it which is a shame because it’s probably the better novel. (Allan Massie certainly thinks so.[16]) My fault for reading it straight after Docherty and for imagining that it was going to be a sequel in the traditional sense which it’s not; one interviewer called it a semi-sequel. The only person who appears in both books is Conn Docherty but he’s not the huge presence his father was. Surprisingly neither of his brothers is even mentioned which I thought was just a little odd; I would’ve liked to have known what became of them.

The Kiln, unlike Docherty, plunders McIlvanney’s own past. It fictionalises it but there are actual events from his childhood memorialised within its pages. In several interviews he tells this anecdote:

I remember coming home from the dancin' around the age of 17, and there was my mother sitting with the pinny on, reading The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. I don't think where we came from that was a common phenomenon. I also remember having impromptu poetry readings, though I think we pulled the curtains in case anyone stoned us.[17]

The same for:

The first thing I wrote was a poem when I was fourteen. It was like a piece of extra-terrestrial material that landed in the living room, and I thought I think that’s a poem! I chose my judge carefully. My brother Neilly was out back sawing a bit of wood; I went to him because he was tolerant of all my half-baked ambitions. Neilly said, You didn’t write that, did you? It’s great. If Neilly hadn’t said that, I might have packed it in there and then.[18]

writingxlge

All of which and more appears in The Kiln. And so this is a very personal book. He’s asking: Do I measure up? Would Tam Docherty be proud of me? In his famous poem ‘Digging’Seamus Heaney wrote:

Between my finger and my thumb
The squat pen rests.
I’ll dig with it.

McIlvanney uses a similar metaphor. He talks of "howkin' for ideas" rather than for coal. His father was indeed once a miner like Conn but—also like Conn—he gave up the pit and became “a general labourer”. In the novel Tom struggles at school when asked what his father does because after quitting the mine Conn seems unable to hold a job down for long and drifts from one to another; it’s easier to call him a general labourer than try to explain about his get rich quick schemes. Conn doesn’t go to night school to try to improve himself. In fact, to his father’s shame I would imagine, he’s willing to step in to dissuade Tom from going to uni which reflects a conversation McIlvanney overhead his parents having:

My father was saying, 'Willie should leave school, get a job and bring money into the house.' I heard my mother saying: 'Do not even dream about it.' My father just murmured: 'Aye, all right.' Now, that was important. Because I would not have minded going out to work. I would have said: 'Why no'?'

Politics and religion aren’t absent from The Kiln but there’s even less there than in Docherty. The book focuses on a single year, 1955, when Tom is seventeen and rock and roll was born; it’s the year leading up to his leaving for university. To earn some extra cash before heading off he gets a job in Avondale Brickworks. The kiln of the title is a literal kiln but it also becomes a metaphor:

The kiln was not only in Avondale Brickwork. It was between Maddie Fitzpatrick’s legs. It was in his head. It was where you found who you were.

Docherty is a coming of age novel in the broadest sense; the whole world grew up after 1914. The Kiln is a bildungsroman in the truest sense. In Docherty community and tradition are paramount but only fifty-odd years later a young Tom Docherty finds himself in a very different world with crumbling values. If Docherty was an ode then The Kiln is a lament for a way of life that’s now lost to us bar what’s been preserved in books like McIlvanney’s. Twice in the book we’re told, “You can’t disown your past without becoming no one.” How much do our parents and our grandparents’ pasts affect who we become? McIlvanney refers to it as a “sense of mutuality”,[19] something which he feels only survived until the fifties along with what we used to call “traditional values”: “Tradition doesn't survive in a vacuum—it survives on living re-commitment.”[20]

The book is narrated by an adult Tom. We don’t know his exact age but he says he’d older than his dad was when he died which means he’s at least fifty-two. The book was published in 1989 when McIlvanney was fifty-three and one year before Thatcher was ousted from power, a very different world from when Docherty was published in 1975 but different is not always better. Ways of life have vanished. Yes, on the whole we do live in a more prosperous society but at what cost? It’s a trade-off. Much has been lost—and that rightly should be lamented especially the loss of community spirit (let’s face it half of us don’t know the names of most of our neighbours and have probably never been in any of their homes)—but it’s also a celebration of what was good about the past and the good that came out of it. Now education is guaranteed to all and that is a good thing. From a personal perspective though Tom has lost a lot: his brother (who died of a brain haemorrhage), his marriage has failed and his innocence has had the stuffing kicked out of it. Has progress been made or has his life in fact regressed? He’s sitting alone in a flat beside Edinburgh’s fourteen acre Warriston Cemetery and he’s not sure:

[H]e realised that old griefs were still with him. You didn’t live beyond them, you just found out how to live round them. They were like bad lodgers you learned to accommodate. In that repeated scouring of himself, he had yet again being trying to rebuild the world around him. Wasn’t that what everybody had to do in the light of changing experience? To live in the world was to remake it daily.

TheBigManTom’s an educated man. His father and grandfather were not but Tam sincerely believed that part of the cause of the working man’s problems lay in a lack of education. Tom comes from that stock but education hasn’t made him an especially happy man. When we meet him he’s divorced, alone, miles away from home riddled with self-doubt. Is it any wonder that he would try to find meaning—or at least solace—in dwelling on his childhood’s end when the future still looked promising? In The Big Man Dan Scouler says at one point, “Any future that has to sacrifice the present to get there isny worth goin' to. Don't save me a ticket.” Well, Tom’s found himself in that future. It seems odd that McIlvanney, an educated man and himself an educator for seventeen years, would argue against education—seeing it as often irrelevant and downright harmful—but it’s not education per se that he’s opposed to; it’s the kind of education that’s available and what it costs: you can be a working man or an educated man but there’s no such beast as an educated working man. I went through the Scottish education system and much of it was irrelevant. I never had the chance to study Greek but I did take Latin for a year. Maybe twenty-three years earlier I would’ve had to do Greek. Tom recollects having to study Greek in school and realises that schooling failed to meet his needs:

He remembers having to translate The Anabasis in the Greek class. And that’s another thing: Latin and Greek at school—what does that have to do with living in Graithnock?

Interestingly it’s a fight that’s central to The Kiln, a “square-go”[21] as McIlvanney might’ve referred to it. Tom Docherty is a writer. It’s not that he’s never done a day’s hard work in his life because we know that he has but that’s not what he’s all about; he doesn’t aspire to be a man who works with his hands. (The Scot in me wants to make some flippant remark about writers still needing their hands but that aside…) The fight takes place in the brickworks and it’s between Tom and a bully called Cran Craig; the symbolism smacks you in the face but only once you realise that a ‘cran’ is a crane and ‘craig’ is derived from the Gaelic creag meaning ‘a rocky cliff’. Cran is the anti-Docherty. He hates all Dochertys. We never learn why exactly but that’s not important. What is important is that Tom has to face up to his legacy. What does it mean to be a Docherty? This is his rite of passage. He wins as it happens—a lucky blow coupled with the fact Cran has an Achilles’ heel (well, Achilles’ arse)—and he gets to walk away holding his head up. In much the same way as his grandfather’s brawls became legend, so also will this one.

He walks away from Cran, the brickworks, Graithnock. He has become a Docherty. Now he decides the time has come to redefine what it means to be a Docherty. Can one be a Docherty and, for example, a writer?

To challenge conditioning without trying to eradicate it, to modify it honestly in the light of individual thought, was to become yourself. The rest was an act of psychic self-deceit. He wouldn't be pretending to be who he wasn't.

Being a writer gives you certain tools. There won’t be a serious writer out there who isn’t interested in getting to the truth and how do we go about it? We make up stuff. We tell lies, half-truths at best. McIlvanney was perfectly capable of writing an autobiography as other Ayrshire writers have done—Henry Mair’s Alone I Rebel jumps to mind or Janice Galloway’sThis Is Not About Meand All Made Up—but instead he chose to fictionalise his past as so many of us do, the better to get at something like the truth whilst being ever aware that over his shoulder “some aspect of reality that was being excluded was leaning perpetually, saying, ‘What about me?’” I know McIlvanney isn’t a fan of postmodernism but there’s definitely something going on here that’s not your bog-standard narrative:

(‘Author! Author! Right, there he is now. Let’s get the bastard.’)

There’s a lovely scene in Docherty where Tam sits with Conn and gets him to read from a book of poetry that he’s come by. It pleases Tam that he lives in a world where poets exist but how would he feel about a grandson who became a poet? I’d like to think he’d be big enough to be proud of him. Whether he’d be necessarily proud of everything Tom gets up to on his way to becoming a poet I can’t say but I can guess.

As much as McIlvanney is loved in his native Scotland—and for an author for whom years can go by between publications this is especially noteworthy (he wears his “hump”[22] well)—he has also received a fair bit of abuse over the years. Some have, for example, criticised his use of dialect whereas others think he doesn’t go far enough. The simple fact is that he would’ve struggled to express much of his thinking had be doggedly stuck to Scots throughout the text. He recalls:

I spoke Scots until I was five, and I went to primary school, and I was taught English—what I resent is that I was taught English to the suppression of Scots. I think it was necessary that I be taught Standard English in conjunction, as a harmonious marriage, with my own daily speech—it would have been good! […] all I can do, it seems to me, is inhabit the paradoxes as healthily as possible and try to embrace the dichotomies. And I think there can be a fruitful union between the two; it seems to me false to seek a reversion. I think you have to inhabit the contemporary situation as healthily as you can.[23]

In Docherty I used Scots dialogue because that’s how they spoke there at that time. I used English outwith the dialogue because the residual Scots wasn’t flexible or rich enough to convey the complexity of the ideas I wanted to express. Even if, after I had studied a Scottish dictionary, I had found the Scots words. Ninety-odd percent of Scots people wouldn’t have known what the hell I was saying. It’s time to own up. Languages die. Who knows what the Etruscans were trying to say? Scots isn’t dead. But it’s no very weel. I at least tried to recognise it in the dialogue.[24]

Critics often jump all over the violence in his books as if violence was a way of life. It’s not, not for any of the characters, but it is an aspect of life. Even I got into fights at school. I grew up in Scotland, what was I to expect? One area I’ve not mentioned up until now is his attitude towards women. Really the issue is not the author’s attitude towards women but his country’s. His books are set in times and places where men ruled the roost; I just love it when academics use words like ‘homosocial’—seriously, who talks like that? Men were the primary breadwinners, yes, but the women weren’t sitting around with their feet up sipping piña coladas while their maids got on with the housework. All his books focus on men—that would be ‘homocentric’ then?—but the importance of women to these men can’t be (and isn’t) ignored; there are long sections in Docherty devoted to Tam’s wife, his daughter and his neighbour, Miss Gilfillan. Tam gets into a fight with a peeping tom to protect Miss Gilfillan, Angus tackles his brother-in-law for begbiemistreating his wife—women are to be defended—and Conn fights Angus over his attitude towards their father; in every case there’s a principle involved and they don’t simply lash out in frustration. There’s no comparison between the fighting in Docherty and the arbitrary violence of Begbie in Trainspotting (I’m thinking especially of the balcony scene[25]). By the fifties in The Kiln, however, the women have become more powerful and the young Tom is very much in thrall to them especially Maddie Fitzpatrick who basically uses Tom and tosses him out the door when she’s had her fun which is a complete reversal of what happens with Tom’s Uncle Angus. Tom’s mother decides that her son will go to university and her husband, Conn (a shadow of the man he aspired to be), simply accepts her ruling. If McIlvanney does write a third book (which he was talking about back in 2010[26] although in 2013 he let slip that he still had a long way to go[27]) it will be interesting to see how the battle of the sexes is fairing. It would be nice if Tom’s daughter could be the book’s focus.

Of course in some respects the third Graithnock novel has already been written. The Big Man doesn’t feature the Dochertys but we do get to see what the future really does hold out for the town:

By the time the coal was gone, Graithnock hardly noticed because it had other things to do: there was whisky-distilling and heavy engineering and the shoe factory and later the making of farm machinery. But the shoe factory closed and the world-famous engineering plant was bought by Americans and mysteriously run down and the making of farm machinery was transferred to France and the distillery didn’t seem to be doing so well.[28]

[…]

Something like honour, something as difficult to define and as difficult to live decently without, had gone from the people’s sense of themselves. ... An old woman could be mugged in a park, an old man tied and tortured in his home for the sake of a few pounds, five boys can beat up a sixth, a girl raped because she was alone, the houses of the poor broken into as if they had been mansions.[29]

I can see why he might relocate the Dochertys to Glasgow. Graithnock’s story appears done. For now at least.

McIlvanney said in interview:

I think you should read a book as straight as possible if you can. Starting a book should be like arriving in a new country. Hand in your passport and take it as it comes.

Bring your intelligence, as much as you can muster. But surrender your prejudices at the border. They’re contraband.[30]

If you find you don’t like what you meet there then go and read someone else. Enough people stop McIlvanney in the street and tell him how much his writing has meant to them that he won’t be too upset if you don’t appreciate what he has to offer. But at least give him a go. Allan Massie has described him as the Scottish Camus[31]—and, of course, Camus’s not to everyone’s tastes either—and McIlvanney is a fan—“I love the idea that Camus combined a terrific intelligence with terrific humanity,[32]” he says—well, I can say the same about him: McIlvanney’s work combines terrific intelligence with terrific humanity.

In a chat with Stuart Kelly in a pub he mentions that “he is proudest that a review called his work tender. ‘It's always been about love,’ he says”[33] and he’s is right: he loves his family, his community, his language and his heritage. And we love his books. Well I certainly do.

I’ll leave you with a recent BBC TV interview:



FURTHER READING

Seán Damer, ‘“Sense and Worth”: A Review Essay’, Scottish Affairs, No.22, winter 1998

David Pattie, ‘The Decentring of Docherty: the Scotsman in Contemporary Drama’, International Journal of Scottish Theatre, Vol.1 No.2 (December 2000)

Keith Dixon, ‘Writing on the Borderline: The Works of William McIlvanney’, Studies in Scottish Literature, Volume 24 | Issue 1, Article 13

K. M. Newton, ‘William McIlvanney's Docherty: Last of the Old or Precursor of the New?’, Studies in Scottish Literature, Volume 32 | Issue 1, Article 11

Carole Jones, ‘White Men on Their Backs – From Objection to Abjection: The Representation of the White Male as Victim in William McIlvanney’s Docherty and Irvine Welsh’s Marabou Stork Nightmares, International Journal of Scottish Literature, Issue One, Autumn 2006

Rebecca Hunt, An analysis of the construction of masculinity in Scottish literature using George Douglas Brown's The House With The Green Shutters, William McIlvanney’s Docherty, Irvine Welsh's Marabou Stork Nightmares and Iain Banks's The Wasp Factory

Jürgen Neubauer, Literature as Intervention: Struggles over Cultural Identity in Contemporary Scottish Fiction

Jóhann Axel Andersen, Casting a Long Shadow. A Study of Masculinity and Hard Men in Twentieth-Century Scottish Fiction

Franziska Lipkowski, Docherty II

Gerald Carruthers, ‘The Relativity of Experience in William McIlvanney’s The Kiln in James McGonigal, Kirsten Stirling eds., Ethically Speaking: Voice and Values in Modern Scottish Writing, pp.51-67 (not all pages available online)

 

REFERENCES


[1]Company Pictures have optioned the TV rights to William McIlvanney's Laidlaw trilogy.” – Caroline Carpenter, ‘McIlvanney's Laidlaw trilogy heads for TV’, The Bookseller, 29 November 2013

[2] Brian Ferguson, ‘William McIlvanney’s Laidlaw set for TV series’, The Scotsman, 3 December 2013

[3] James Ellroy apparently described Ian Rankin as "the king of tartan noir" and Rankin’s debt to McIlvanney has been publicly acknowledged. “Rankin tells the story of attending a reading of McIlvanney's back in the day, and letting him know in the signing queue afterwards that he was trying to write a crime novel set in Edinburgh. "Good luck with the Edinburgh Laidlaw," Willie wrote in Rankin's copy of his novel Docherty.” – Doug Johnstone, ‘How William McIlvanney invented tartan noir’, The Guardian, 11 August 2013

[4] McIlvanney has called the term ”ersatz” and distanced himself from the hype. […] “I’m a hung jury about the phrase,” says McIlvanney. “I suppose it works as an adman’s slogan. Certainly, for the American market, say, it probably gives the most succinct signal of Scottishness they would recognise. But simultaneously, it suggests an old-fashioned view of the place, as if modern Scotland were being observed through a lorgnette rather than the 20-20 vision of people like Ian Rankin and Tony Black.” – Tony Black, ‘The Past, Present and Future of Tartan Noir’, Mulholland Books, 8 September 2011

[5]10 Favourite Scottish Novels, The Scottish Book Trust

[6]Radical Scotland interview, p.25

[7] Bram E. Gieben, ‘William McIlvanney: Laying Down The Law’, The Skinny, 1 May 2013

[8] Samuel Beckett, Endgame

[9] Keith Dixon, ‘Writing on the Borderline: The Works of William McIlvanney’, Studies in Scottish Literature, Vol. 24, p.144

[10] William McIlvanney, ‘Stands Scotland Where It Did?’, Surviving the Shipwreck referred to in Gerry Hassan, ‘Games with shadows: living in Thatcher’s Scotland’, Our Kingdom, 9 April 2013

[11]‘William McIlvanney Interview’, The Scottish Review of Books, Vol. 6, Issue 2, 13 May 2010

[12] Alan MacGillivray, ‘Natural Loyalties: The Work of William McIlvanney’, The Association for Scottish Literary Studies

[13] Quoted in John Williams, 'William McIlvanney’, Back To The Badlands: John Williams Crime Fiction Resource

[14] William McIlvanney, Surviving the Shipwreck, p.231

[15] William McIlvanney, Strange Loyalties, p.128

[16]“I have no doubt that The Kiln… is a masterpiece. It confirmed [McIlvanney], to my mind, as the finest Scottish novelist of our time.” – Allan Massie, ‘Scotland's master of crime is also its Camus’, The Telegraph, 25 May 2013

[17]‘Interview: William McIlvanney, writer’, The Scotsman, 17 August 2010

[18]‘William McIlvanney Interview’, The Scottish Review of Books, Vol. 6, Issue 2, 13 May 2010

[19]Ibid

[20] William McIlvanney, 'Stands Scotland Where It Did?', Radical Scotland 30 (Dec 1987 – Jan 1988), p.21

[21]‘William McIlvanney Interview’, The Scottish Review of Books, Vol. 6, Issue 2, 13 May 2010

[22] His reputation—half Billy Connolly, half James Maxton—is "a hump on my back that was put there. It never grew there naturally." It's easy to see: he is still, in Glasgow, a weel-kent face, if not a celebrity. – Stuart Kelly, ‘A writer's life: William McIlvanney’, The Telegraph, 27 August 2006

[23] William McIlvanney quoted in Simon Köves, James Kelman, pp.16,17

[24]‘William McIlvanney Interview’, The Scottish Review of Books, Vol. 6, Issue 2, 13 May 2010

[25] Irvine Welsh, Trainspotting, p.79

[26]‘William McIlvanney Interview’, The Scottish Review of Books, Vol. 6, Issue 2, 13 May 2010

[27]"I never like to talk about ideas before they are fully formed. A third Docherty book with Tom Docherty would be interesting. I would set that in Glasgow. I love the city with the zeal of a convert."– Hugh Macdonald, ‘William McIlvanney: following the demon’, The Herald, 5 April 2013

[28] William McIlvanney, The Big Man, p.9

[29]Ibid, p.11

[30]‘William McIlvanney Interview’, The Scottish Review of Books, Vol. 6, Issue 2, 13 May 2010

[31] Allan Massie, ‘Scotland's master of crime is also its Camus’, The Telegraph, 25 May 2013

[32]‘William McIlvanney Interview’, The Scottish Review of Books, Vol. 6, Issue 2, 13 May 2010

[33] Stuart Kelly, ‘A writer's life: William McIlvanney’, The Telegraph, 27 August 2006

Why I write (after Orwell)

$
0
0

 

george-orwellThe summer 1946 edition of the short-lived magazine Gangrel included an essay by George Orwell entitled, ‘Why I Write’. It opens with the following short sentence:

From a very early age, perhaps the age of five or six, I knew that when I grew up I should be a writer.

I never did. Apart from a single poem—a macabre thing written in Scots about, of all things, a public hanging—I never wrote anything that wasn’t part of my schoolwork. If given a topic I would hand in an essay or a story or a poem, I suppose. I don’t actually recall ever being asked to write a poem but I also can’t imagine going through Primary School without ever doing so, so let’s just assume that I did. The first thing I wanted to be—this would be about the age of seven—was a mathematician; I remember being asked—the class I was in was in one of the huts that had been constructed in the playground—and I also recall Brian S. at the back of the class saying he wanted to be a giant when he grew up. I’ve no idea what anyone else said they wanted to be or whether any of them got to be what they wanted to be although I’m fairly certain Brian never got to be a giant. I’ve always been good at maths, always in the top maths class and always in the top percentile of that class but I never became a mathematician. That said all that algebra certainly came in handy when I started programming which I also loved and was good at.

He continues:

Between the ages of about seventeen and twenty-four I tried to abandon this idea, but I did so with the consciousness that I was outraging my true nature and that sooner or later I should have to settle down and write books.

By the time I was seventeen—and by this time I’d left school and already quit my first job (I’d wanted to be a draughtsman and although I was top of my year I didn’t cope well in the workplace; I realised very quickly that that wasn’t the job for me)—and I was wondering what exactly I was going to do with my life. The idea of trying anything that involved anything more than Basic English—for example, journalism—never occurred to me. A family friend pointed me towards a vacancy in the Civil Service and that’s where I went. It was a good fit. The job required business English, modest arithmetical skills and a modicum of common sense so, having two out of the three under my belt, I muddled through until I could fake the third. I’m still faking it.

I began to write poetry so I would have something to submit to the school magazine and for each of the four years I was at Secondary School I had more poems published than anyone else; this was between the ages of twelve and sixteen. After leaving school at sixteen I found I still wanted to write poetry, that it filled a need other than the need for attention, and so I continued and began submitting to small press magazines with, I hasten to add, modest success. I even got paid for one and not just a contributor’s copy. But I still viewed writing as a hobby although I hated the word and have never referred to my writing as a hobby other than on a CV and even there after a few years I changed ‘Hobbies’ to ‘Interests’. I was never going to make any money out of it—that was blindingly obvious—and yet when I looked in the mirror I saw a poet looking back at me and I gained some comfort from that. I never, not for a second, considered writing prose and then one day I came home from work and, without giving it a second thought, wrote a play. It was a bad play—it clearly needed that second thought—but it had a good title—The Normalpath. Why I thought I could write a play I have no idea. An idea came a-knocking, it evidently wouldn’t work as a poem, so I let the content dictate the form. Little did I know that this was to become my first Rule of Writing. I was twenty-one when I wrote what technically can be described as my first book; motivated by the birth of my first and only child I dashed off a children’s book, H M Mole, with the great opening line: “Henry Martin Mole was a mole which is a useful thing to be with a name like Henry Martin Mole”. She was eighteen before I got round to reading it to her but that’s another story.

Orwell continues:

I was the middle child of three, but there was a gap of five years on either side, and I barely saw my father before I was eight. For this and other reasons I was somewhat lonely, and I soon developed disagreeable mannerisms which made me unpopular throughout my schooldays. I had the lonely child's habit of making up stories and holding conversations with imaginary persons, and I think from the very start my literary ambitions were mixed up with the feeling of being isolated and undervalued. I knew that I had a facility with words and a power of facing unpleasant facts, and I felt that this created a sort of private world in which I could get my own back for my failure in everyday life.

I was the eldest of three; my brother is three years younger than me and our sister is three years younger than him. I don’t think that was planned; I suspect that’s just how things worked out. I was not an especially lonely child although I was not uncomfortable spending lengthy periods of time in my own company—it was good company—and I grew increasingly tolerant of solitude as I grew older or rather intolerant of others. I did not have an imaginary friend. I recall a child in the street, a girl called Maureen I think, calling me a recluse once: “Here comes the recluse,” she said. Not sure how old I was when she did but I remember being a bit taken aback because, to my mind, a recluse was like a hermit and, at least in kids’ stories, hermits were never the most likeable of characters. I didn’t have a label to 260px-A_Journey_to_the_Centre_of_the_Earth-1874describe what I was other than me and being me was the most normal thing under the sun. I didn’t do much writing at this time. I discovered classical music when I was about twelve; that and art absorbed me for the next few years. I wrote music, painted pictures and read although mostly non-fiction. I never bought any fiction bar comics until I’d left school. What little I did read came from the local library and the only book I can remember taking out was Journey to the Centre of the Earth. Don’t get me wrong, words interested me, they fascinated and delighted me, but apart from an expanding vocabulary I didn’t have much use for them. In this regard I was the same as Orwell:

When I was about sixteen I suddenly discovered the joy of mere words, i.e. the sounds and associations of words. The lines from Paradise Lost

So hee with difficulty and labour hard
Moved on: with difficulty and labour hee.

which do not now seem to me so very wonderful, sent shivers down my backbone; and the spelling ‘hee’ for ‘he’ was an added pleasure.

Yes, at sixteen (and even younger), I knew that words were a source of pleasure. I loved prefixes and suffixes. I thought the word ‘hemidemisemiquaver’ was just wonderful, so much more magical than the boring old American ‘sixty-fourth note’.

Orwell completed his first novel, Burmese Days, when he was thirty. This, I have to say, surprised me. From the way he describes his childhood I assumed that he would’ve begun much earlier. I was only four years older when I wrote my first novel; you can’t really call H M Mole a novel.

Orwell continues:

I give all this background information because I do not think one can assess a writer's motives without knowing something of his early development. His subject matter will be determined by the age he lives in—at least this is true in tumultuous, revolutionary ages like our own—but before he ever begins to write he will have acquired an emotional attitude from which he will never completely escape. It is his job, no doubt, to discipline his temperament and avoid getting stuck at some immature stage, in some perverse mood; but if he escapes from his early influences altogether, he will have killed his impulse to write.

I’ve read those three sentences over and over again. They read like a statement of fact, the kind of thing a university lecturer would trot off and his students would scribble down frantically and try to decipher (in more ways than one) later on. Whether one agrees with him or not Orwell certainly gives one reason to pause. What was my motive for writing and has that motive changed? No one does anything without a reason even if that reason isn’t reasonable. (I can feel the kid in me here delighting in that play on words.) Is ‘motive’ the same as ‘inspiration’? What inspires me to write? Inspiration is not unlike attraction. I get ideas all the time, hundreds of the buggers running through my head every day, but I’m only drawn to a few and even fewer get developed into a piece of writing. It’s like women. I like women. I’ve always liked women. But I don’t have a type. I’ve considered the women I’ve had relationships throughout my life and the ones I would’ve liked to have had relationships and they have very little in common when it comes to looks, build, personality or intelligence. But each of them has that certain je ne sais quoi. Attraction is not unlike taste, in fact we talk about a man’s taste in women, but when I consider my palette there are all kinds of flavours and textures that appeal to me. I love chips and I probably could live off them forever but I would get bored with them eventually. And so it’s true with what drives me to write. Yet I can see certain recurring themes in my work. The earliest is a preoccupation with the notion of truth.

I was brought up in a religious household and the need to be honest and truthful in all things was a big thing—Satan was the father of the lie but we would know the truth and the truth would set us free—and yet quickly enough I found myself telling little fibs, quite naturally. I say no one taught me to lie but the reality was that I was surrounded by liars. All of us are. We aspire to be truth tellers and that’s not a bad thing to aspire to but it’s very hard to fight human nature. If there’s a single theme underlying my entire oeuvre it’s the search for truth. Even in the kid’s book we have a reclusive mole whose eyes are opened when a young and worldly-wise mouse (Fingal O’Mouse, would you believe) takes him on a trip to London. Twenty-odd years later who’s the protagonist in my first novel but a reclusive bookseller whose life is turned upside down by the appearance of a young man who purports to be the personification of the truth? In all my books you’ll find the same dynamic: ignorance forced to face the truth.

Orwell goes on:

Putting aside the need to earn a living, I think there are four great motives for writing, at any rate for writing prose. They exist in different degrees in every writer, and in any one writer the proportions will vary from time to time, according to the atmosphere in which he is living.

These four great motives are: Sheer egoism, Aesthetic enthusiasm, Historical impulse and Political purpose. He defines the first as:

Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on the grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood, etc., etc. It is humbug to pretend this is not a motive, and a strong one. Writers share this characteristic with scientists, artists, politicians, lawyers, soldiers, successful businessmen—in short, with the whole top crust of humanity.

This is a dangerous one because I am clever. I don’t need to try to seem to be clever. I can’t help but be clever. I’ve no great need to appear cleverer than I am, however. Despite the fact being clever has often distanced me from people, I wish I was cleverer; the damage has been done. At school I never studied. I never felt as if I was studying. I never really got what the other kids were moaning about. To my mind there was only learning and learning was fun; it continues to be fun. Work is satisfying especially if you can be creative in that work. It’s what passes with me for play; play I find hard. Anyway I have a modicum of cleverness comprised of a fair amount of knowledge derived from fifty-four years’ worth of experience which distils down into a fair bit of understanding and a soupçon of actual honest-to-goodness wisdom and insight. I think it’s wrong not to share that. I don’t make more of it than it is—there’s so much stuff I know nothing about—but the stuff I do know is good stuff and I’d hate for it all to be lost when I shuffle off this mortal coil. It pleases me that when I die my daughter will have a small library on her bookshelf all written by me.

So what’s Aesthetic enthusiasm when it’s at home? According to Orwell:

Perception of beauty in the external world, or, on the other hand, in words and their right arrangement. Pleasure in the impact of one sound on another, in the firmness of good prose or the rhythm of a good story. Desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed.

200px-NoExit_coverIt’s not enough to say something that’s true or important. There are ways to say things, effective ways, and a lot of the time they’re neither fancy nor clever. Advertisers are masters in this regard and all you have to do is look at a book of quotations to realise that often all we remember from a work an author might have slaved years over is a line like, “Hell is other people.” I don’t know how long Sartre laboured over No Exit but I wonder how he would feel to know that that’s all most people know of his play and a lot of the people who know that don’t even know it was him that wrote it? But it’s a good line. It deserves to be remembered. It is the essence of the whole play. It’s what you take away with you.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. (I wonder who first said that.) Not all writing—or art or music, come to think of it—is or ought to be beautiful because it’s asking us to experience or remember something unpleasant. The words ought to be well chosen and appropriate. They might not be beautiful but they should satisfy a particular need; they should be fit for purpose. I’m with Taylor Coleridge who said, “I wish our clever young poets would remember my homely definitions of prose and poetry; that is, prose = words in their best order; poetry = the best words in their best order.” Beauty is not mentioned.

Orwell has little to say on the subject of Historical impulse:

Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.

Seeing things as they are is not easy. We’re ill-equipped for the task. We don’t see, we perceive; we don’t remember, we imagine. We think because we’ve remembered something that we’ve remembered it accurately. And then there’s the problems caused when we attempt to translate our thoughts into words. What, for example, does Orwell mean when he talks about “true facts”? Is there such a thing as an untrue fact? I am continually impressed to find that lies are capable of containing the most profound truths. By ‘lies’ I mean ‘fictions’, made-up stuff. I’m not really interested in history. I’ve obviously been affected by it and am continuing to be affected by it but I think all important truths, the most profound truths, exist outwith any specific historical framework. I have very few pieces of writing that commemorate any kind of historical event. Here’s a rare (and not especially good) exception:

DEATH OF AN ENGLISH ROSE


A million flowers died today,
maybe more

laid down at the gates of palaces
in public parks and private homes
at the mouth of a tunnel in France

by mothers, fathers and children,
dying men and old women,
all strangers to each other

but not to this sense of loss.


2 September, 1997

I can’t say I was entirely unmoved by the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, but—and this is unusual for me because I’m not much of a nature lover either—I was taken aback by the incredible number of flowers that we went through on the days leading up to her funeral. And every one of them died too. And to what purpose? To add a bit of colour to a bleak day?

Finally onto Political purpose:

Using the word ‘political’ in the widest possible sense. Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other peoples’ idea of the kind of society that they should strive after. Once again, no book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.

I have no interest in party politics although Gerald Ford does get name-checked in a very, very old poem. I think politicians are all as bad as each other but they’ve all got some good in them too. Even the Nazis weren’t all bad; they’d never have got into power in the first place if they were all bad. But do I have a desire to “alter other peoples’ idea of the kind of society that they should strive after”? I’m not really much of a social animal. Groups of people don’t really interest me. I didn’t mind studying sociology, learning about all the different –ocracies for example, but I’ve always enjoyed psychology more. I don’t address groups in my writing. I’m only ever talking to one person. Before you improve society one needs to improve oneself. I address issues I am capable of addressing. Reading one of my poems isn’t going to change the world but it might change an individual and the world is comprised of billions of individuals so the effect I’m likely to have is going to be miniscule but as the Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu said, “A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step.”

Orwell doesn’t say that a writer needs to have these four motives in equal measure:

It can be seen how these various impulses must war against one another, and how they must fluctuate from person to person and from time to time. By nature—taking your ‘nature’ to be the state you have attained when you are first adult—I am a person in whom the first three motives would outweigh the fourth. In a peaceful age I might have written ornate or merely descriptive books, and might have remained almost unaware of my political loyalties.

On-WritingHe also says nothing about writing to entertain or for financial gain. These are by-products of the writing process. Even for a writer like Stephen King. He’s lucky in that’s he’s able to write what he wants and others find the work entertaining and are willing to pay him for the pleasure of reading it. But that’s not why he writes; read his On Writingif you doubt me. He doesn’t need the money and yet he writes daily. I expect most writers these days don’t need the money. They have jobs that pay the bills and if their writing brings in a few quid extra then that’s a nice bonus. I think if I had to write in order to put bread on the table I’d feel very differently about my writing. I remember reading Hunger many years ago and disliking the fact that the writer had to bend his art to meet the needs of others.

Another thing Orwell never mentions is pleasure. A hobby is something one does for pleasure. Writing can be pleasurable—I’m enjoying writing this—but mostly it’s not. The pleasure comes on completion and is short-lived. Orwell concludes:

Looking back through the last page or two, I see that I have made it appear as though my motives in writing were wholly public-spirited. I don't want to leave that as the final impression. All writers are vain, selfish, and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives there lies a mystery. Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven on by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand. For all one knows that demon is simply the same instinct that makes a baby squall for attention.

He wrote this essay, as I said at the start, in 1946. He died in 1950. He had one book left in him. As it happens it was his masterwork, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and yet this is what he had to say about it beforehand:

I have not written a novel for seven years, but I hope to write another fairly soon. It is bound to be a failure, every book is a failure, but I do know with some clarity what kind of book I want to write.

That smacks so of Beckett. You know the line about failing better. Woody Allen is a great example here. In a 1976 interview in Rolling Stone he said, “I would like to fail a little for the public…What I want to do is go onto some areas that I’m insecure about and not so good at.” He admits he could be like the Marx Brothers (who were heroes and early influences of his) and make the same comic film every year but he didn’t want to do it. It was important for him to evolve, to risk failure, to risk failure in front of everyone. And his movies did that, going from the early slapstick humour of Sleeper to the darker Crimes and Misdemeanours and Match Point. I remember so well the fuss that was made when Interiorsand Stardust Memoriescame out. He says, “If you're not failing every now and again, it's a sign you're not doing anything very innovative.”

Stranger than Fiction coverThis is one of the reasons I’ve shied away from sequels. Been there; done that. I was actually a little disappointed with myself when I was working on my novella Exit Interview because I set it in the same universe as Living with the Truth and the situation is not entirely dissimilar to the setup in Stranger than Fiction; I felt it was unavoidable. When I sit down to edit it—which I leave for a long, long time usually—I may well try to distance the book a little; it stands on its own well enough; it doesn’t need the references even if they don’t hurt. Maybe I’m just doing what I always do when I’ve finished something new: I’m tearing it to pieces. The novelty of a new novel never lasts for long.

In an article written for the Daily Telegraph the playwright William Nicholson wrote:

In my play about C.S.Lewis, Shadowlands, I gave Lewis the line, ‘We read to know we’re not alone.’ That has been my own experience. It’s through books that people I’ve never met have reached out to me, saying, ‘This is what matters most to me. Does it matter to you too?’ This feeds something very different to the appetite for entertainment. It feeds, I suppose, the hunger for meaning.

Ah, finally, meaning. In my novella, Joe Kaye is asked what he thinks the meaning of life is. His response?

[I]n my humble opinion meaning is the meaning of life. You need to be doing meaningful things for life to be worth living. It’s not enough to get up, go to work, come home, watch TV, go to bed and repeat ad infinitum ad nauseum. Life is like a pot. It can contain meaning or it can be left empty. It can be functional or decorative. You need to make a difference.

I confess: that’s me talking here, not Joe.

Of Orwell’s four primary drives I’d have to say that the third one is dominant within me, the desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity, to give those ‘facts’ meaning. What I write—what I’m writing right now—has to mean something. Otherwise, what’s the point? My books matter. My stories matter. My poems matter, even the not very good ones like ‘Death of an English Rose’. Every time I read it I’m reminded of that day and how I felt. The same happens when I pick up my novel The More Things Change. It means something to me that it’ll never mean to anyone else. I remember sitting at home working on it when my wife phoned me and told me to turn on the news; there was something happening in the skies over New York. There’s nothing in the book that reflects that but a book only contains spaces for meaning. The actual meaning is jammed into these nooks and crannies by the readers. Some are a bad fit. Occasionally though one reader comes along who has all the missing pieces. At least in theory one has. Personally I’m still waiting. But while I’m waiting I keep writing.

You can read Orwell’s entire essay here. There’s also a blog called Why I Write which is also worth checking out. Let me leave you with one or two entries:

#184 – Because who I am on paper is better than who I am in reality.
#181 – Because I can.
#156 – Because I don’t know what else to do.
#144 – To get revenge without going to prison.
#88 – Because I like writing better than talking to people.
#45 – Because it’s a part of who I am.
#14 – Because I want to recreate the world.

Viewing all 404 articles
Browse latest View live