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

The Humans

$
0
0

 

MarkShermin: "Have people from your world been here before?"

Starman: "Before. Yes, we are interested in your species."

Mark Shermin: "You mean you're some kind of anthropologist? Is that what you're doing here? Just checking us out?"

Starman: "You are a strange species, not like any other... and you'd be surprised how many there are. Shall I tell you what I find beautiful about you?"

Starman

The HumansThere’s nothing new under the sun. If you’re a writer and you really want to depress yourself spend an hour or so (as I’ve just done) clicking through the links on TVtropes.org. There you’ll find evidence to back up my opening statement. There’s nothing, nothing (Shultz, Hogan’s Heroes) that’s not been done before. So when I picked up Matt Haig’s new novel The Humans I expected to be treading some familiar ground. And I did. To list just a few tropes we come across in this book: Aliens Among Us, Voluntary Shapeshifting, The World Is Not Ready, These are Things Man Was Not Meant To Know, They Look Like Us Now, Humans Through Aliens Eyes, Literal-Minded, Out Of Character Alert, Humanity Is Infectious, Pinocchio Syndrome, What Is This Thing You Call Love?, Curiosity Causes Conversion, Interspecies Romance, Spot The Imposter, Humans Are Special. In many respects this list just about summaries the whole book. It’s all been done before. And all I have to say to that is: Who cares?

I asked Matt if he felt a bit intimidated by all of this to which he replied:

[T]o answer your point, I take the view that there are no new stories. In fact there is only one story—the quest story. But my main aim with The Humans was to look at human life, and a non-human narrator was the simplest way of doing that.

Makes perfect sense to me. You see I loved Spock and Data and Seven of Nine, even Odo in his way, and Mork, and all the Solomons (from 3rd Rock from the Sun); I loved the Coneheads and ALF, Roswell,The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxyand thestrangererslecardMy Favourite Martian. I really loved The Strangerers and was sorely pissed I missed the last episode because the show ended on a cliffhanger and has never been released on DVD. I loved The Outer Limitsand The Twilight Zone. And I’ll tell you why I loved all of them: Because I could relate to them. Because I’m an alien too.

Okay, I’m not an alien but I’ve often felt like one. I’m a writer and, despite what you might think, there really aren’t that many of us kicking around the planet. I was a grown man before I met another one in the flesh. I’d read about them and their peculiar writing habits but as far as I was concerned I was on my own trying to make sense of these strange non-writing creatures I was surrounded by.

Although there isn’t anything especially new in this book it does say a lot that bears repeating. Our nameless narrator—seriously the Vonnadorians don’t use names—states the blindingly obvious, the kind of things that scientists and economists and sociologists and psychologists and environmentalists and religious leaders have been shouting from the rooftops pretty much for years, and yet somehow humanity is still trundling along merrily towards its eventual (but hopefully not that immediate) collapse. Which makes this book kind of pointless, yes? Only it’s not.

At first it starts off very much in the vein of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy:

I know that some of you reading this are convinced humans are a myth, but I am here to state that they do actually exist. For those that don’t know, a human is a real bipedal lifeform of mid-range intelligence, living a largely deluded existence on a small waterlogged planet in a very lonely corner of the universe.

For the rest of us, and those who sent me, humans are in many respects exactly as strange as you would expect them to be. Certainly it is true that on a first sighting you would be appalled by their physical appearance.

Their faces alone contain all manner of hideous curiosities. A protuberant central nose, thin-skinned lips, primitive external auditory organs known as ‘ears’, tiny eyes and unfathomable pointless eyebrows. All of which take a long time to mentally absorb and accept.

The manners and social customs too are a baffling enigma at first. Their conversation topics are rarely the things they want to be talking about, and I could write ninety-seven books on body shame and clothing etiquette before you would get even close to understanding them.

Oh, and let’s not forget The Things They Do To Make Themselves Happy That Actually Make Them Miserable. This in an infinite list. It includes – shopping, watching TV, taking the better job, getting the bigger house, writing a semi-autobiographical novel, educating their young, making their skin look mildly less old, and harbouring a vague desire to believe there might be a meaning to it all.

Mating Habits of the Earthboud HumanNow if this sounds a bit like David Hyde Pierce’s narration to The Mating Habits of the Earthbound Human then you’ve got the right idea. Our unnamed alien is assigned to earth, only not as an anthropologist because they’ve already pretty much made their minds up regarding the human race: they are violent, arrogant, greedy, untrustworthy, hypocritical and dangerous. The most dangerous of all was one Andrew Martin, a professor of mathematics living in Cambridge, England. I say ‘was’ because on Saturday, the seventeenth of April, he was abducted by these aliens who extracted what they needed from him, killed him and then assigned one of their own to replace him. So I should probably have included the Kill and Replace trope in my list at the start too. This alien’s brief is a simple enough one: Destroy all physical evidence that a solution exists to the Riemann hypothesis and eliminate all humans who are even aware that there is a solution.

According to Marcus du Sautoy, “Most mathematicians would trade their soul with Mephistopheles for proof of the Riemann hypothesis.” Apparently it’s “the most important unresolved problem in mathematics.” And it’s all to do with prime numbers and the search for a pattern to them. Because there doesn’t seem to be one. And humans—especially human mathematicians—get really narky when they can’t see a pattern to things. They’d solved Fermat’s Last Theorem and the Poincaré conjecture but the Riemann hypothesis had eluded them until Professor Andrew Martin worked it out. And that was a problem. The Vonnadorians don’t belong to Starfleet; they’ve no Alien Non-Interference Clause to adhere to. So when they realise that the humans have unlocked the key, drastic action is needed. Despite arriving on earth stark naked, getting knocked down (whilst still naked), arrested (for being naked), sent for psychological assessment (for not realising what the big deal was about wandering around Cambridge naked)—nice K-Pax moment there—the doppelgänger still manages to find his way to Andrew Martin’s office within hours of his arrival (clothed by the time he does), locate the man’s research and Destroy the Evidence:

‘There,’ I told myself, ‘you may have just managed to save the universe.’ But things are never that simple, not even on Earth.

No, they’re not. Because Andrew had sent a copy to a colleague, confided in a friend, boasted to his son and mentioned it to his wife. So, what trope are we onto now? Leave No Witnesses. And that takes time. And that’s the problem. Because the more time the alien spends with humans the more he has his preconceptions shaken. And animals too. There’s a lovely Androcles Lion moment between the alien and Andrew’s old, sick dog that he heals. Of course at first the dog growls at him knowing he’s not his master—so that would be the Animals Hate Him moment—but afterwards they become best buddies even if the alien does struggle with the dog’s language. Then follows music and poetry, peanut butter sandwiches, Australian wine and sex. Eventually he does a Heel Face Turn and he Becomes The Mask. This may sound like a bit of a spoiler but from the preface to the book it’s pretty obvious that the alien has come to empathise with the humans. Needless to say his bosses are not pleased. He’s been warned that if he fails in his mission another will be assigned and that’s exactly what happens.

Man_who_fell_to_earth_ver1I’ve made my point. In so many respects this book is derivative and even fairly predictable. I should be panning it rather than praising it but I loved it. From the first page to the last. The short chapters kept the action rolling along and it was so easy to say to myself: Just one more chapter. It began, as I’ve said, in a light-hearted manner and although the humour never disappears completely the book does become more serious as it progresses. It never quite ends up as The Man Who Fell to Earth but it does ask some hard-hitting questions. If you’re not much of a reader though I suggest you locate a copy of the book, open it up to page 271 and tear out the four leaves that comprise the chapter entitled ‘Advice to a human’, fold them up, tuck them inside your jacket pocket and read them whenever you have a spare moment, sitting on the bus or train or waiting to be seen by the doctor. There are ninety-seven aphoristic statements here. Let me share a few:

1. Shame is a shackle. Free yourself.
2. Don’t worry about your abilities. You have the ability to love. That is enough.
3. Be nice to other people. At the universal level, they are you.
4. Technology won’t save humankind. Humans will.

16. Tragedy is just comedy that hasn’t come to fruition. One day we will laugh at this. We will laugh at everything.

22. Don’t worry about being angry. Worry when being angry becomes impossible. Because then you have been consumed.

25. There is only one genre in fiction. The genre is called ‘book’.[*]
26. Never be too far away from a radio. A radio can save your life.
27. Dogs are geniuses of loyalty. And that is a good kind of genius to have.

31. Failure is a trick of the light.

It’s almost worth the price of admission for this one chapter I’ll tell you. You can read the full list here but here’s a wee video that covers forty of them:

I really enjoyed this book. I really enjoyed this book in the same way I could sit down today and watch any episode of Mork and Mindy and enjoy it. It doesn’t matter that I know what’s coming; that’s the pleasure. Although she only said it out loud the once, you know Mindy was thinking it in every episode: “Oh, Mork; what Earth concept have you misunderstood this week?” The Humans is reassuring in that way. It’s like when you’re a kid and you want the same book read over and over again. If I didn’t have so many other books to get through I could happily pick this one up again.

***

matt haigMatt Haig was born in Sheffield, England in1975. He writes books for both adults and children, often blending the worlds of domestic reality and outright fantasy, with a quirky twist. His bestselling novels are translated into 28 languages. The Guardian has described his writing as 'delightfully weird' and the New York Times has called him 'a novelist of great talent' whose writing is 'funny, riveting and heartbreaking'.

His novels for adults are The Last Family in England, narrated by a labrador and optioned for film by Brad Pitt; The Dead Father's Club (2006), an update of Hamlet featuring an 11-year-old boy; The Possession of Mr Cave (2008), about a man obsessed with his daughter's safety, and The Radleys (2010)—which I reviewed here—which won Channel 4's TV Book Club public vote and was shortlisted for a Galaxy National Book Award (UK). The film rights to all his adult novels have been sold.

His multi-award winning popular first novel for children, Shadow Forest, was published in 2007 and its sequel, The Runaway Troll, in 2009. His most recent children's novel is To Be A Cat.
 

NOTE


[*] For more on this read his blog entry Literary Fiction Must Go


Niches

$
0
0

Penthouse

I think that there are empty ecological niches in the literary landscape crying to be filled and when a book more or less fills a niche it's seized on, even when it's a far from perfect fit – Edmund White



When I think of niches I think of porn. As a kid growing up like most kids it was where I learned much about sex and the female anatomy along with words I couldn’t pronounce because I’d never heard them spoken aloud—honestly it was cun-i-ling-you-is for years. Not so much about males but we are talking Scotland in the sixties and seventies; I’d seen enough willies down the baths or the beach to realise which way my boat floated. My mate used to raid his dad’s Penthouse collection and share it with me. ‘Twas a sizeable collection, too, for none were missed or if their loss was ever noticed their disappearance was certainly never remarked upon.

Some years later the first sex shops started to appear north of the border and, unable to contain my curiosity, I scuttled into one in Kilmarnock and had my eyes well and truly opened. There were magazines and videos that catered for every conceivable quirk and fetish (at least it felt like that): women with big boobs, small boobs, long legs, dainty feet, pert bums, in all sorts of uniforms and outfits made of rubber or leather, big women, young women, wives, lesbians, mature women, hirsute women, hairless women, black and Asian women, tied-up women… It was a far cry from the Penthouses I’d thought were so wonderful only a few years earlier.

And I didn’t get it. You see I never talked to anyone bar my mate about sex and if you imagine a Scotiafied version of Steve and his mates from American Dad,well, that was us; all talk, nothing more. To my mind sexual preference meant you were gay or straight and that was it. Once I started to look around I realised that there wasn’t much even vaguely female that I wasn’t attracted to. The notion of only getting turned on only if my bird wore some sort of weird rubber get-up and had a ping pong ball stuffed in her gob didn’t register. Words like ‘kinky’ or ‘perverted’ were always swimming around in my head, although I didn’t like to judge. But the idea of only getting turned on by one thing—any one of those things I’ve listed above—didn’t gel. I liked just about everything, just not all the time.

And I’m the same with books. I knew a bloke once who read every western the library had to offer and only then did he make a start on the war novels. I have no idea if he read all of them—he wasn’t a youngster when I met him—or what, if anything, he moved onto next but that would have driven me mad. It’s like having chips every day for twenty years. Now I like chips—especially chippie chips—but every day? It would take a while but I would get fed up with them. And then rice for the next twenty and pasta for the twenty after that and couscous until I croaked. No thanks. It’s like the scene from the film version of Shirley Valentine:

Joe:It’s Thursday. We have steak on Thursday. We always have steak on Thursday.
Shirley:We’re having egg and chips for a change. You like egg and chips.
Joe:On a Tuesday. I like egg and chips on a Tuesday. Today is Thursday.
Shirley:Well pretend it’s a Tuesday.
Joe:Where’s me steak?
Shirley:I gi’e it the dog!

My dad was never like that although he could easily have been.

mivviPreferences I do get. If you have a choice between a Pineapple Mivvi and a Strawberry Mivvi you make your choice. I would have preferred the pineapple one but, at a push, I wouldn’t eaten the strawberry rather than have nothing. But I wouldn’t’ve wanted a Pineapple Mivvi every time. That’s what I don’t get. The Mivvis were ice lollies made by Lyons; the original with the strawberry-flavoured coating came out in 1954 and the Pineapple Mivvi in 1973. I was looking down the list of their products and noticed this one from 1972: Angel—For teenage girls, a strawberry and vanilla kreem ice, half of it choc coated. What is there about that that screams: “teenage girl” I ask you? Probably nothing more than the wrapping. I don’t remember it but I bet I wouldn’t’ve bought it because it was for girls and I wouldn’t’ve wanted to be seen with a girls lolly unless a girl was holding said lolly in one hand and holding my hand with the other. Yeah, only in my dreams.

John Locke famously sold one million ebooks in five months. His secret? He wrote for a niche. A niche he’s identified, investigated, and delivered to over and over and over as fast as possible. And all credit to the guy. He worked the system. Did he sell his soul to do it? I don’t think so. I suspect he wrote what interested him and was in the right place at the right time with the right product and the right tools to promote said product.

Find a need and fill it. That’s good business practice. Seriously though does anyone need any more books?

But that’s the thing. After I saw my first pair of boobs I wanted to see another pair. Right away, please. And once I’d seen them and they weren’t that different to the first pair I wanted to see more just to make sure but after I’d seen several dozen—okay, hundred—and realising that there wasn’t that much difference between the first pair I’d seen and the last pair I’d seen I still found myself interested every time an opportunity arose where I could see someone else’s. Nothing ever seemed to satisfy my curiosity. And it wasn’t just boobs. I was the same with every other part of the female anatomy and was for a very long time; in fact only recently did I notice a change. I handed my wife my tablet the other day on which there was a photo of Dita von Teese and said to her, “You know, it’s a sad day when presented with a bosom like that that one notices the belt buckle she’s wearing.”

Books used to excite me like that. I visited one sex shop just assuage my curiosity but I’ve never grown tired of book shops. It doesn’t really matter if it’s a posh shop of some smelly second-hand place I like to be surrounded by books and, had I the funds, I would walk out every time with armfuls of the buggers. But I’ve never had those kinds of funds and so I’ve had to be selective and that’s hard because I don’t really go for a niche. Okay I prefer literary fiction but not all the time. Just look at the books I’ve reviewed over the years.

There are loads of articles online talking about niches, sub-niches and even micro-niches. It gets a bit silly after a while. This is how silly:

shitinwoodsKathleen Meyer found a niche market and wrote a small thin book that took the outdoors backpacking and camping world by storm. Her book, How to Shit in the Woods: An Environmentally Sound Approach to a Lost Art,was released in 1989 and has become a year round best seller. At last count, it had sold over 1,500,000 copies and has been translated into several foreign languages. Kathleen's book is THE book on the subject of defecating in the woods. The lesson to be learned is not to dismiss any subject just because it is an off the wall topic. – John Vonhof, ‘Identifying Your Niche’, André Anthony’s Niche Market Know-How

It is a real book. Just click on the link if you doubt me. It’s 128 pages long and onto its 3rd edition. Whoda thunk there was that much to say about pooing?

But that’s nonfiction and it’s somewhat easier there to drill down to see where a need exists and fill it. It’s like chip shops, book shops and even, I dare day, sex shops. We don’t have a chip shop near where I live although a van comes round most nights and parks down the hill; the nearest one is a twenty minute walk which is about as far as the nearest one was to my parents’ house when I was a kid, only there wasn’t just the one there; there were two and there had been two for years and both were clearly turning a nice profit, but what if a third had opened across the street or a fourth round the corner? I took the bus down into Glasgow a couple of weeks back and passed PC World. Across the road a small, independent retailer had opened up Priceless Computing hoping, obviously, to skim off some of the passing trade; it’s been there for about fourteen years I would reckon. This time, though, I noticed that there were now at least another six small shops all bearing similar-sounding names along a stretch of road of maybe fifty yards. Seriously I know Glasgow can handle a pub on every corner but how many computer shops does Finnieston need?

The same goes for vampire romances and sagas about boy wizards.

What comes first, the niche or the product? Whatever the product is there will be a niche for it so that’s not a problem. There is someone out there for every book even if it’s just your mammy. I bet you that JK Rowling never thought to herself: Hmmm I haven’t read any good books about wizards. That means there’s a desperate need for a book about wizards. She’s more likely to have thought: Hmmm I haven’t read any good books about wizards. I guess no one’s interested in wizards any more but I’ll write one anyway. And it’s not just a time thing. Cowboys and Indians used to be a game that all kids played when they were wee but I don’t see a resurgence in interest in westerns coming soon. There have been efforts but none of them have sparked off any real passion with the public. That said, for some reason DC’s butt-ugly western anti-hero Jonah Hex keeps managing to stay in print even if he isn’t in his own title at the moment.

When I wrote Living with the Truth I never gave a second thought to niches or demographics. As it happens I found one. I’ve never seen a book or a film yet where Truth is a character. And by that I mean the personification of Truth. There’s a character called The Truth in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreasand one in the comic Enigma but that’s about it. Yay! I’ve found my niche. And there’s no competition. Surely I’ve hit the mother lode here.

Or maybe not.

GwenThe American Girl line of dolls debuted in 1986. The dolls depicted figures of various ethnicities and attributes that were instantly popular with children and collectors. A line of books was released, as well as a clothing line and various accessories, all to excellent sales.

One of the dolls produced was named Gwen Thompson, and her unique attribute was that she was homeless and lived with her mother in a car. It is hard to say who was the intended target audience for this doll, but it wasn’t on store shelves long enough for anyone to find out. Gwen Thompson disappeared from store shelves after just a few months. – 10 Toys that Failed, CNBC.com

Apparently one out of every 45 children – some 1.6 million – in the United States is now homeless, according to a report released in December by the National Centre on Family Homelessness. As far as niche markets go that’s a sizeable demographic if only they could afford the dolls which retailed at $95 when they were first produced in 2009.

And that’s the problem with niches. My niche needs to be literate, book buyers and financially well enough off to be able to waste money on fripperies like paperbacks. The first two are not so hard but with so much free and almost-free stuff out there, who is going to search for a product that’s a perfect fit when there are plenty that will do. The jeans I’m wearing just now cost about £10. They’re not a perfect fit, not quite the shade I’d prefer but they were ten quid and what do you expect for ten quid. These days more and more it seems.

Sex still sells. I expect sex will always sell. I don’t completely avoid sex in my books but if you’re looking for titillation then I suggest you fork out for Fifty Shades of Grey.

My problem is I read ‘niche’ and I hear ‘rut’. Yes, I wrote a sequel to Living with the Truth. I did it because it felt right and not to capitalise on the popularity of the first book because I’d not even tried to do anything with that first book and didn’t for about five years. I look at all that I’ve written over the past forty years and it is really hard to categorise. There will be people who’ll like my first two novels but won’t get the next two; there’s no guarantee that any of them will take to my short stories and my poems are something else entirely. And who knows who’ll like the plays if they ever, ever get staged. Oh, and there’s the children’s book and I’m really not sure where that fifth novel fits in with any of it. I’m not even sure I like it that much and I wrote the ruddy thing.

Can somebody please tell me who the hell should I be pitching to?

I’m finding it a real problem because I don’t think I’m a niche kinda guy. Yes, there will be a few people, a few dozen people, hell, I’m even willing to accept that there might be a few hundred people out there who will like any one thing that I’ve written or will someday write but the only person out there who will like everything that I’ve written—or at least just about everything to take account of my previous comment—is me.

And don’t get me started on brands.

The Silence of Gethsemane

$
0
0

The Silence of Gethsemane

…ecce homo…­ – John 19:5 (Latin Vulgate)

Basically there are three kinds of novels: novels where everything is made up (e.g. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz), historical novels where the author aims to be as accurate as possible and often goes to great lengths to research the topic under discussion (e.g. Wolf Hall) and then there are the novels that are based on an historical event but play fast and loose with the facts (e.g. Stephen King’s11/22/63). I mention this because on the cover of The Silence of Gethsemane is says, “A Novel” and I’m not sure what kind of novel it is. It’s based on the life of an (arguably) historical character and is a result of “thirty years of private research” and yet I found myself nitpicking my way through most every chapter. The problem is the author is writing about the gospels—we talk about the gospel truth, don’t we?—and yet just look at how people squabble over what’s written in those four short books. Some refuse to believe that a man called Jesus even walked the earth despite the Bible’s meticulous chronology, others are willing to accept his existence since there is some historical evidence that he existed in addition to the accounts in the Bible but they still think he was only a man, still others believe him to be the son of God and some even think he was God. They can’t all be right. As a work of fiction the Jesus in this book can be anything its author decides he ought to be and none of us can whinge about his decisions but as the author of a work of historical fiction he owes it to us to get his facts straight. There is nothing readers of historical fiction hate (or love depending on their persuasion) more than finding something that’s factually inaccurate like a character popping a Polo mint into their mouth in New York when it should be a Life Saver. The problem with ‘facts’ is that they aren’t always as factual as we might like them to be.

 

The ‘Facts’

In this account Jesus is an ordinary flesh and blood man; there’s nothing divine about him; his father is a local carpenter and his mother was no longer a virgin at the time of his birth. This is not the first time Jesus has been presented this way. I remember well—even though I was only nine when it was first broadcast—watching Dennis Potter’sSon of Man with my family and my father’s bitter criticisms of Potter’s play.

There are no miracles, no resurrection, no Mary Magdalene, no Last Supper and no thirty pieces of silver. In their place it offers an occasionally violent, frequently fascinating dramatisation, focusing on the psychological underpinnings of the characters. It opens with a powerful juxtaposition: Jesus in the wilderness, shivering in an agony of self-doubt, while religious agitators in the city are murdered by the Romans during a mass gathering. – Sergio Angelini, ‘Son of Man’, ScreenOnline

The entire play is currently available on YouTube here.

Benoît’s book presents a much calmer Jesus. We first meet him in the Garden of Gethsemane. His disciples are all asleep and Jesus is reviewing the events that have brought him there. In effect then this is a fifth gospel and it’s a first person narrative which is unusual as it’s the first I can remember ever reading. Even with Potter we have to stand on the outside and wonder just what’s going on in Christ’s head.

Laidlaw novelsLet me digress for a moment. William McIlvanney wrote three novels featuring his detective Jack Laidlaw. The first two have third person narrative but the last book, Strange Loyalties, is written from Jack’s perspective and I didn’t take to it at all at first. I’d already formed my internal picture of who Jack Laidlaw was and it was like some other guy had come along and taken over the part. Well, that’s a bit how I felt reading this book. The Jesus in this book just didn’t gel with the Jesus I had been brought up with. The man in my head was physically and mentally perfect, was sure of himself and understood his life’s purpose even as a young boy. He wasn’t searching; he had no doubts; he was very much in charge of his own destiny. Benoît’s Jesus took some getting used to.

My biggest problem was with the ‘facts’. Let’s examine a few. First point: We’ll all have heard Jesus at one time or another referred to as “the Nazarene”

…and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfil what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene." (Matthew 2:23)

but was he also a Nazirite as Benoît casts his Jesus? So, what’s a Nazirite? Simply put they were individuals who took special vows of service. The word means ‘dedicated one’ or ‘one singled out’. The vows were voluntary as was the duration during which they agreed to serve as a Nazirite although Jewish tradition eventually imposed a minimum time limit of thirty days on them. During that time they agreed not to drink alcohol, not to touch a dead body and not to cut their hair. I know of three individuals who were lifetime Nazirites: Samuel, Samson and John the Baptist, the latter two being designated as such by God. The Bible says nothing about Jesus being either a God-appointed Nazirite or him taking vows voluntarily and yet Benoît chooses to make him one. (See the article Nazirite or Nazarene if you’re interested.) Of course the Bible doesn’t say he wasn’t one either. Benoît concludes he was one because Jesus is so often portrayed with long hair but who said he had long hair? Not the Bible. Long hair was actually frowned upon.

Second point: Jesus does meet John the Baptist in Benoît’s book but he doesn’t know him. This puzzled me because as far as I was concerned they were second cousins. Everything hinges on a single verse:

And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. (Luke 1:36)

This is the angel talking to Mary and later on, of course, Mary visits Elizabeth. The question is: In what way were they related? The Catholic Encyclopaedia gives us as much of an answer Champaigne_visitationas there is: “All our information concerning … the parents of Mary … is derived from apocryphal literature.” So maybe the two women weren’t cousins but if they weren’t fairly closely related why was Mary visiting Elizabeth? Seems reasonable. And yet Benoît’s Jesus is a complete stranger to John. That I found a bit harder to swallow but, again, it’s not impossible.

And so I stumbled on, nitpicking here, nitpicking there. The subject of prayer bothered me. Third point: We all know when asked by his disciples how they should pray—in fact they actually interrupted him praying—Jesus outlined what’s become known as the Lord’s Prayer and the book does cover that but it wasn’t until page 141 that we get to see Jesus say in so many words, “I decided to spend the night praying on my own.” Up until then he’s slipped off on his own to enjoy a moment’s peace and quiet and he talks often about how much he needs silence but he never discusses praying up until this point in the book. I found that very strange. Stranger yet in the Afterword Benoît talks about how he sees Jesus’s notion of prayer:

Meditation. I can think of no other word to describe his way of praying, which was unheard of in Judaism, and was met with surprise and a total lack of understanding by those closest to him. He never shared the secret of this private, inner world, although from what we are able to tell it was not dissimilar to the practice used in Hindu-Buddhism.

Why when his disciples approach him, when he “had gone off to be alone for a while as was [his] wont” doesn’t he teach them this form of prayer? Why provide them with a rote prayer which is what it’s become nowadays? And it’s wrong to say that meditation was unknown to the Jews: “Keep this Book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.” (Joshua 1:8)

Fourth point: the miracles. These get split into three: the ones Benoît completely ignores (all the “miracles involving the natural world”), the ones he provides alternate solutions to (the turning of water into wine, the feeding of the multitudes) and the cures, including the various resurrections from the dead (which he accepts). I can see why he makes the distinction because Benoît places a great deal of emphasis on the faith of the person being healed—as Jesus says to the once blind man in Mark 10:52, “Go … your faith has healed you”—but dead people don’t have faith so that argument kind of falls flat.

That Benoît accepts supernatural healings and attributes these to God opens up some interesting issues like, Fifth point: Satan the Devil, a.k.a. “the Evil One.” Jesus does go off for a wander in the wilderness—albeit after his baptism by John:

Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus also was baptized (Luke 3:21)

Now Jesus, full of holy spirit, turned away from the Jordan, and he was led about by the spirit in the wilderness for forty days, while being tempted by the Devil. (Luke 4:1)

not before it as Benoît states—and there he is tempted by the Devil but rather than describe the Devil as an individual with whom he can interact this is how Benoît writes about Jesus’s temptation:

And then strange apparitions started surging up inside my head. Let loose by the lack of thoughts, a fearsome opponent was attacking me, harrying me until my inner life began to ebb away. I knew it was the Evil One, whom Israel traditionally portrays as Satan or the Devil, he who divides. He danced round and round inside me, as if mocking me in that ironic, fiendish way of his, knowing that I was in his clutches, that my attempt to escape was just the result of my pride.

So, a voice in his head, self-doubt perhaps, and yet later in the book there are instances where the Evil One possesses people in the crowd to stir them up. On occasions Jesus orders him to leave them. Now that’s demon possession and if the demons are real and can be exorcised then why after Jesus successfully resisted Satan in the wilderness did God’s angels not appear and minister to him?

Then the devil left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him. (Matthew 1:11)

If demons are real why not angels? Or were they the “Essenes from Qumran” who Jesus identified by their “brilliant white smock(s)” who, at the start of his wandering, provide some practical advice?

No one can survive on his own in the desert, he said. You seek the solitude that cleanses? This is where you will find it. Behind you lies utter destitution. Travel far into its depths, far enough to forget about us but not too far, so you can come and drink regularly from our springs. Sometimes you will find a few dates on this rock. They will help keep you alive without breaking your fast.

That’s believable. Remember when Lot encountered the angels at the gate to Sodom he thought they were just weary travellers (Genesis 19:1,2). Benoît might have done better though if he had simply presented the Evil One in human guise, as did George Stevens, when he cast Donald Pleasancegsetas ‘The Dark Hermit’ in The Greatest Story Ever Told. That way the man could have continued to reappear as does the Dark Hermit throughout the film thus avoiding the whole issue of whether the Devil is a person or a force.

These few examples are just here to illustrate how open to interpretation the source material is. Don’t get me wrong Benoît gets an awful lot right but I doubt too many who pick up this book will be as well-read on the subject as I am. Those who are, especially those who accept Jesus as either a perfect man or as God incarnate, will have loads of problems with this book—Jesus, for example, had to be born in Bethlehem for prophecy to be fulfilled; you can’t just change that to Capernaum even though he did live there for a time.

Putting all that aside as best I can let’s consider the book as a work of fiction.

 

The Fiction

Benoît has the same problems here as Ron Howard had when he made Apollo 13: how do you make a story interesting when everyone knows exactly how it ends? Benoît handles the ending cleverly: he—wisely in my opinion—skips it completely. The book begins and ends with Jesus sitting waiting in the Garden of Gethsemane along with his sleeping disciples for his imminent capture. While he’s waiting Jesus reviews his time as a rabbi. So, as I’ve said already, what we really have here is a fifth gospel, The Gospel of Jesus. And his truth is nowhere near as assured as the four others are. You get a definite sense of a man finding his way.

Before a man finds his way he probably needs to realise that he’s lost his way and that’s what we see in the opening chapters, a Jesus who’s looking round at the religious leaders and the growing number of sects and realising that the entire Jewish nation has lost its way. Then he hears of a voice in the wilderness and goes to hear what this John the Baptist has to say for himself. He never looks back afterwards:

John the Baptist’s grim, ominous tone made a deep and lasting impression on me. Once I got home and reimmersed myself in the humdrum routine of the workshop, the voice I had heard by the Jordan kept on echoing in my mind incessantly. I knew that my life had changed forever. John had held up the blazing inferno of the apocalypse before my eyes; dazzled by it, everything about the life I had led up till then suddenly struck me as prosaic, occupations and people alike. On the shores of the lake nothing had changed, yet to me it was now flat and colourless. This world of ours was doomed, the end was upon us: the axe had already fallen on the tree of Israel.

He begins going to the synagogue outside of normal services and studying the scriptures. He realises that, if John is the man spoken of by the prophets, his role is to “[p]repare the way of the Lord.” He’s no clue at this point that he is the person whose arrival John is heralding. He returns to the Jordan and becomes a disciple of John. Later when John announces that one stands among you who you do not know Jesus suspects that he’s talking about him but he hasn’t connected all the dots yet. This is, however, where he encounters four other disciples of John: Andrew, his brother Simon, Philip and Nathanael—who are the first to accompany him on his wanderings—and a fifth character known only as “the Judaean” who I thought would turn out to be Judas Iscariot (as I knew he was from Judea) but as he turns up later it couldn’t be him; actually “the Judaean” is never named but he appears often throughout the book as do individuals like Lazarus and Nicodemus both having their roles expanded beyond what we know of them from the four Gospel accounts. imagesI assume “the Judaean” is the “So-and-so” referred to by Matthew (26:18) since later on he is the one to offer up his house so that Jesus can celebrate what we now know as the Last Supper. He would also appear to be the mysterious “thirteen apostle” that Benoît discusses at length in his book The Thirteenth Apostle.(This wee list of a possible thirteen is interesting though and it doesn’t include either Matthias (who replaced Judas Iscariot) or Paul who became the “apostle to the Gentiles”.)

The first place this small group travel to is Cana where there was due to be a wedding. Here is where I would have expected the first miracle but here’s what happens in this account:

She [Jesus’s mother] had a quiet word with the servants who took me to an alcove where there were six large water jars that were being kept cool. Looking inside, I saw they contained that bitter and quite undrinkable syrup which in hot climates like ours is used for making wine. It had to be diluted in just the right proportions to turn it into a drink fit for the gods.

So no miracle. The only thing to come of it is that the Judaean witnesses everything and realises that there is more to this man: he “wasn’t just a country carpenter.”

And so the book progresses. The first healing occurs just two chapters on—the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law—and this is how Benoît describes it:

An elderly woman was lying on a bed, struck down by one of those fevers that can bring death in a matter of days. Unable to give voice to his fears, [Peter] leant over and wiped the sweat from her face, then stood up and looked at me. In his eyes burned a slightly wild look of expectation, a mute desire.

I straight away knew what he wanted. Unlike the simpleton in the synagogue [whom Jesus alone had encountered the day before], this prostrate woman didn’t appear to be possessed by Evil, She wasn’t screaming and shouting, she posed no threat—she was just going to die.

I took her by the wrist and helped her sit up. Startled, she got to her feet and just stood there, swaying slightly. Then without a word of thanks she walked out of the room. A moment later we heard her bustling round the fire, wielding kitchen implements and getting the menfolk’s supper ready.

Jesus never questions where this ability has come from or what his limits are and when shortly thereafter, word having spread from house to house, ailing people arrive at the door from every quarter he sets about healing “most of them” irrespective of what was wrong with them.

And on we go. It’s like we’re wandering through an alternate universe. Everything’s the same only not quite the same. Perhaps one thing Benoît does make a little clearer than the Gospel writers is just how Jesus could do what he did and be seen by so many and still end up being hated. Simply put everyone would’ve been quite happy for the Messiah to arrive as long as he did so on their terms. The religious leaders weren’t opposed to change but any changes were made at a painfully slow pace—there was no room for sweeping improvements—whereas the common people would’ve been more than happy to see the back of the Romans; they didn’t want to have to wait for the kingdom of God.

Where I think this account falls short is in Jesus’s voice. It would be easy to blame the translator here but I don’t think that’s the case. I just found him a bit dull. At the time of writing this review there’s not much online to see what others thought but two made comments worth mentioning: Kirsty on Goodreads said, “Benoît's interpretation of Jesus was one of the least likeable characters I’ve come across in a while,” whereas Rebecca over at newbooks says, “I wasn’t sure whether it was the voice of Jesus or that of the author which came through most strongly.” This is a man who is expecting to be arrested in a few hours and painfully executed within a couple of days most likely and yet there’s a wearisomeness to his storytelling. Grated there’s a lot to weary him—his bickering disciples would test the patience of a saint (and this Jesus certainly isn’t one of them)—and the religious leaders, the Scribes and the Pharisees, just drag him down at every opportunity plus there’s the Evil One’s constant efforts to undermine his work. At least Potter’s Jesus had a bit of life about him. There’s not enough man here for my tastes. Benoît’s intentions are commendable and it’s not a bad effort, I’ll be honest, but great literature this is not. It’s storytelling—or retelling if we’re being honest.

I’m not sure who this book is for. Those who have a faith already will probably enjoy picking holes in it as did I and I’ve no faith left, not even a smidgen. Those who are looking for some kind of spiritual connection probably won’t be able to relate to this guy because he’s too good. He’s never seriously tempted by anything, not even a woman who he admits he has little interest in. If you’re going to present the Jesus as the imperfect man then we need more of the imperfections for him to feel real to us.

You can read the first nineteen pages here.

***

AVT_Michel-Benoit_109Religious scholar and novelist Michel Benoît (which I believe is a pseudonym–see here) was born in Madagascar in 1940 (then a French colony). In 1962, having studied Biochemistry under Nobel Prize winner Jacques Monod and obtained a PhD in Pharmacology, he entered the Benedictine order as an unordained monk at the abbey of Saint Benoît sur Loire, remaining there for twenty-two years. Because of his ideological non-conformity, he was eventually “discharged” by the Catholic Church and decided to devote himself to research and writing.

His first book, Prisoner of God, an autobiographical account of his life in the monastery, became an international bestseller when it was published in 1992. This was followed by two religious essays, a travel book based on a trip to India, and then the thriller The Thirteenth Apostle, “the story of an ancient sect detailed within papyrus sheaves hidden in the caves at Qumran”.

Indian Nocturne

$
0
0

ProductImage-7557588

I do not know if I exist... it seems possible to me that I might be someone else's dream... I might be a character in a novel, moving through the long waves of someone else's literary style... — Fernando Pessoa, The Book of Disquiet (trans. by Richard Zenith)




Most traditionally published novels come with a recommendation on the cover from as famous an author as the publisher can get their hands on and this book is no different apart from the fact it’s probably the shortest one I can every remember reading as it consists of a single word, from Salman Rushdie, an author not exactly known for his laconism: “beautiful.” I was curious if that was all he had to say and so I did a search and I suspect that the quote comes from this tweet:

The great Italian writer Antonio Tabucchi died today. Read his beautiful, dreamlike Indian Nocturne (Notturno Indiano), translator Tim Parks.

That was on 25 March 2012. Indian Nocturne is not, however, Tabucchi’s final book. It’s actually an old one, his fifth, written in 1984. The book won the French Prix Médicis étranger in 1987 and is, arguably (at least according to the Boston Review), his “most acclaimed work”. About a dozen books are available in English translations that I could see but the only other by him I’d read is Pereira Maintainswhich I reviewed here back in 2010. I just read through that article and this quote jumped out at me:

His characters, like Pirandello's and Pessoa's, are often endowed with a multitude of personalities and his plots are full of reversals. He is particularly effective both in suggesting a dreamlike atmosphere of mystery and ambiguity and in conveying a message of libertarian commitment. He often presents an intellectual quest, which may take the form of travel to exotic places or purely of a journey in the mind, which allows him to create enigmatic and ephemeral realities. – jrank.org

That last sentence could almost summarise Indian Nocturne in fact. Oddly the book reminded me a little of Ian McEwan’s 1981 novel The Comfort of Strangers in which a couple get lost in Venice—at least it’s Venice in the film—and encounter a strange couple. The protagonist in Indian Nocturne (a writer as it happens) is never lost—he always knows where he is geographically—but then there’s more than one way of being lost. What he has ‘lost’ is his friend Xavier and the plot—I use the term loosely—of the book involves his travels around India looking for him. Of course Xavier isn’t lost—he knows exactly where he is—but does he want to be found? I found the book discomforting and I think that’s why the McEwan jumps to my mind and for no other reason. This is how Tabucchi describes his novella:

Author’s Note

As well as being an insomnia, this book is also a journey. The insomnia belongs to the writer of the book, the journey to the person who did the travelling. All the same, given that I too happen to have been through the same places as the protagonist of this story, it seems fitting to supply a brief index of the various locations. I don’t know whether this idea was prompted by the illusion that a topographical inventory, with the force that the real possesses, might throw some light on this Nocturne in which a Shadow is sought; or whether by the irrational conjecture that some lover of unlikely itineraries might one day use it as a guide.

A.T.

On the next page he lists the twelve locations, one for each chapter, that are the various settings of this novella. They range from a bus stop in the back of beyond to a luxury hotel and at each location he encounters an intriguing individual.

RequiemAn insomnia is an odd description for a book isn’t it? But then he describes The Last Three Days of Fernando Pessoa as “a delirium” and Requiem as “a hallucination” (yes, ‘a’, not ‘an’). But what about the word ‘nocturne’? The first thing I thought about was music to be honest—Chopin wrote several and Mozart before him wrote a Notturno and a Notturna—but the term dates back to the Middle Ages: the canonical offices consisted of eight daily prayer events and last one, the Night Office—sometimes referred to as Vigils—comprised of a number of sections called 'nocturnes'. Later on the artist Whistler took to using musical terms to describe his painting—e.g. the famous Symphony in White, No. 1: The White Girl—and the term has come to be applied—retrospectively in some cases—to any painting of a night scene, or night-piece, such as Rembrandt'sThe Night Watch. The thing is, most of this book doesn’t take place at night and even where it does it isn’t important: a conversation in a hotel room is just a conversation and frankly I’d have to wade through the book to see what the time of day was in each of the chapters because it didn’t register with me as important. Clearly Tabucchi is using the word allegorically or symbolically here. Rushdie called the book “dreamlike” but how can “an insomnia” be dreamlike? I agree totally with him; the book is like a dream, a waking dream, and in that respect I suppose it can be both insomnious and asomatous at the same time. To be fair there is actually a bona fide dream sequence in the eighth chapter so would that be a dream within a dream then or a dream within an insomnia? It gets very confusing. The best I can come up with is that our protagonist is travelling in the darkness of ignorance. I’ll leave it there.

The book opens with our narrator—this is a first person narrative—in a taxi on his way (so he thinks) to the Khajuraho Hotel on Suklaji Street in Bombay; his driver has other ideas:

‘The hotel you mentioned is in a very poor district,’ he said affably, ‘and the goods are very poor quality. Tourists on their first trip to Bombay often end up in the wrong sort of place. I’m taking you to a hotel suitable for a gentleman like yourself.’ He spat out of the window and winked. ‘Where the goods are top quality.’ He gave me a sleazy smile of great complicity, and this I liked even less.

Moments later his passenger has exited from the cab and is making his own way to the the Khajuraho Hotel. Irrespective of his motives—maybe he gets a bung for redirecting customers—the Khajuraho Hotel is exactly what the driver described. The nicest thing the man can think to say about the lobby “if you could call it that” as he enters the place is that it “was merely ambiguous without being sordid;” the hotel’s restaurant menu “promised an infinite variety of dishes but … they were all off. Except for number fifteen.” The variety of prostitutes on offer is slightly better: “from thirteen to fifteen years old, three hundred rupees, over fifty, five rupees.” And that is the reason he is there but whereas he was content to eat the fish and rice dish earlier he’s unwilling to be fobbed off with any piece of tail: “I want a girl called Vimala Sar.” Vilama Sar is also off the menu but he insists and, with the aid of two twenty-dollar bills, she is located and delivered to his room. Not for anything sordid I should add. The girl has written to him about his friend Xavier and so this is the logical place to begin his search for him.

        ‘When he found out I’d written to you he was very angry.’
         ‘And why did you write to me?’
         ‘Because I found your address in Xavier’s diary,’ she said. ‘I knew you were good friends, once.’
         ‘Why was he angry?’
        She put a hand to her mouth as if to stop herself crying. ‘He’d got to be very hard on me those last months,’ she said. ‘He was ill.’
         ‘But what was he doing?’
         ‘He was doing business,’ she said. ‘I don’t know, he didn’t tell me anything, he’d stopped being nice to me.’
         ‘What kind of business?’
         ‘I don’t know,’ she repeated, ‘he didn’t tell me anything. Sometimes he wouldn’t say anything for days and days, then all of a sudden he’d get restless and flare up in a furious rage.’

She has little else to offer him other than that the people Xavier had been doing business with were in or from Goa, someone was writing to him from the Theosophical Society in Madras and before he disappeared he burned all his writings:

         ‘Xavier had written a great deal,’ she said, ‘then one day he burnt everything. Here in this hotel, he got a copper basin and burnt everything.’
         ‘Why?’ I asked.
         ‘He was ill,’ she said. ‘It was his nature. He had a sad destiny.’

That about summarises the opening chapter. Where to look next? She said Xavier was ill so a hospital maybe. And that’s where we jump to, literally mid-conversation with a doctor (something Tabucchi does in most of the chapters which I suppose is dreamlike but it’s also a bit jarring, suddenly shifting from one location to another and into the midst of the action); we’re now having a brief tour of the Breach Candy TajMahalHotelHospital. Xavier’s not there; that would be too easy. From there he moves to a better class of hotel—on the recommendation of the doctor—the Taj Mahal Inter-Continental Hotel, still in Bombay. The next day we witness a conversation between him and a Jain, a follower of Jainism, an Indian religion that prescribes a path of non-violence towards all living beings; it is one of the oldest religions of the world. This takes place in the Railway Retiring Rooms in which one can have the use of a bed as long as one is in possession of a valid railway ticket. On to Madras where he has a strange encounter with the former occupant of his hotel room that doesn’t seem to have anything to do with his quest for Xavier but everything’s not about that. A meeting with the Theosophical Society was on the cards and although the conversation dwells on Hesse and Pessoa I was not entirely convinced that the ghost of Kafka wasn’t lurking in the shadows there too.

We’re now up to chapter seven, the bus to Goa where one of the book’s two (for me) most fascinating encounters takes place at the waiting room adjacent to the bus-stop on the Madras-Mangalore road about fifty kilometres from Mangalore; the place has no name. There he encounters one traveller who catches his eye:

Sitting on the bench at the far end was a boy of about ten with short trousers and sandals. He had a monkey with him, hanging onto his shoulders, its head hidden in his hair and its little hands clasped together round the neck of its master in an attitude of affection and fear. […] I thought it strange, this boy alone in this place with his monkey, even if it is common to see children alone with animals in India; and immediately I thought of a child who was dear to me, and of his way of cuddling a teddy-bear before going to sleep. Perhaps it was that association that led me toward the boy and I sat down next to him. […] [O]nly then did I realise with a sense of horror that the tiny creature he was carrying on his shoulder was not a monkey but a human being.

[…]

The boy stroked the hands clinging together over his chest. ‘He’s my brother,’ he said affectionately, ‘he’s twenty.’ Then assuming an expression of pride … he said: ‘But he knows the Scriptures, he knows them off by heart, he’s very intelligent.’

The “monster” we learn as the conversation progresses is an Arihant, a Jain prophet.

        ‘He reads the karma of the pilgrims, we make a lot of money.’
        ‘So he’s a fortune-teller.’
        ‘Yes,’ said the boy innocently.

The man agrees to have his fortune told. The result is unexpected:

        ‘So,’ I asked, ‘can I hear it?’
        ‘I’m sorry,’ he said, ‘my brother says it isn’t possible, you are someone else.’
        ‘Oh, really,’ I said, ‘who am I?’

Jain_hand-180x300Most of us know about karma—we equate it with destiny—but what about maya and atma? They were new to me. The Ātman is a philosophical term used within Jainism to identify the soul. The boy describes maya as “the outward appearance of the world … but’s it’s only an illusion, what counts is the atma.’ Needless to say the man wants to know where his atma is and, after a little pressing (and an additional ten rupees), the brother tells him, “He says you are on a boat.” After that the head is buried again and it’s clear the audience is over.

The second (for me) most fascinating encounter is in the final chapter which I’m saying nothing about other than to say if you’re a fan of metafictive writing (as I am) you will enjoy it. And, no, is doesn’t take place on a boat. Not sure a boat’s ever mentioned again actually.

So what and/or who is our narrator searching for in India? In an interview Tabucchi said:

Tabucchi: I've always been drawn to tormented people full of contradictions. The more doubts they have the better. People with lots of doubts sometimes find life more oppressive and exhausting than others, but they're more energetic—they aren't robots. I prefer insomnia to anaesthesia. I don't go for people who lead full and satisfying lives. In my books, I'm not on the side of the authorities. I'm with those who've suffered. My first novel, Piazza d'Italia, was an attempt to write history that hasn't been written, history as written by the losing side, in this case the Tuscan anarchists. My books are about losers, about people who've lost their way and are engaged in a search.

Lopez: What are they looking for?

Tabucchi: They're looking for themselves through others, because I think that's the best way to look for oneself. The main character in Indian Nocturne, who retraces the steps of a friend who's disappeared in India, is involved in such a quest. And so is Spino, the character in The Edge of the Horizon who tries to find out the identity of an unknown corpse. I don't know whether these people are going to find themselves, but as they live their lives they have no choice but to face up to the image others have of them. They're forced to look at themselves in a mirror, and they often manage to glimpse something of themselves. – Asbel Lopez, ‘Antonio Tabucchi: A Committed Doubter’UNESCO Courier, November 1999

In a review back in 1989 when the first English edition appeared Amy Edith Johnson, writing in The New York Times had this to say:

Christine, a traveling acquaintance who makes her living “photographing wretchedness,” urges the narrator, over dinner: “Tell me about your novel, come on. . . . I'm intrigued, don't keep me in suspense.” “But it's not a novel . . . it's a bit here and a bit there, there's not even a real story, just fragments of a story. And then I'm not writing it, I said let's suppose that I'm writing it.” Clearly we were both terribly hungry.'' You will be, too, minutes after swallowing Indian Nocturne. – Amy Edith Johnson, ‘In Short: Fiction’, The New York Times, 16 July 1989

Okay, at 135 pages Indian Nocturne is not a feast, no, but it’s the difference between nouvelle cuisine and a Lancashire hotpot. This isn’t a book that will fill you up. This is a book to savour. I didn’t come away from it satisfied. I still have questions. I want to go back and read it all over again to see what I missed. I don’t see this as bad writing; far from it. It’s also not perfect writing—and I don’t just mean the lack of semicolons—but perfection is not open to interpretation.

Doubts are like stains on a shirt. I like shirts with stains, because when I’m given a shirt that’s too clean, one that’s completely white, I immediately start having doubts. It’s the job of intellectuals and writers to cast doubt on perfection. Perfection spawns doctrines, dictators and totalitarian ideas. – Antonio Tabucchi, from a 1999 interview

Why India though? Could this have taken place in, say, Venice? Yes, perhaps, but India is evocative of so much more. Carl Jung wrote an essay in 1939: ‘The Dreamlike World of India’. Is there any better place in the world to stand in for a dream landscape than India? Western sensibilities crumble as soon as you step off the plane. I suppose this story could’ve been told in Japan—I’m thinking Lost in Translationhere which explores similar themes of loneliness, insomnia, existential ennui, and culture shock—but India is just perfect. The book has been filmed—a French version exists, Nocturne indien—and I was interested to see that they cast the same actor as Rossignol and Xavier. Odd choice of name for the lead especially as, towards the end of the book, he says, “I’m called Roux,” so it’s not right to say the narrator is nameless (assuming Roux is his real name) but the filmmaker’s choice is still an interesting one. Are Roux and Xavier the same person? And why was Shadow written with a capital letter in the author’s note? That’s very Jungian. I’m not sure how Roux and Xavier were rendered in the original Italian but I can’t help but notice that Roux begins with an ‘r’ and ends in an ‘x’ whereas Xavier begins with an ‘x’ and ends in an ‘r’. Or am I stretching? The shadow of doubt is unavoidable.

I thought this was a lovely book and I’d have absolutely no problems reading this guy again.

Pnin

$
0
0

Pnin Vintage

He is not a very nice person but he is fun – Nabokov describing the character of Pnin in a letter to his editor at The New Yorker



Readers of my third novel, The More Things Change, which at the current moment in time comprise a not entirely significant two, my current wife and my only daughter (though not a daughter to my current wife despite the fact she treats her like a second daughter), will recall, if they can cast their minds back to when they first perused the pages of said book which neither will have looked at in several years I have no doubt, my fondness for long, intricate and involved sentences like the one I am in the process of attempting to construct and yet none of the sentences in that book or indeed the sentence you are currently in the process of reading can hold a candle to the ones Vladimir Nabokov, the Russian-American novelist, contrived to include in his thirteen novel – and the fourth written in English – Pnin(apparently pronounced ‘P'neen’); I am grateful to Charles Poore of The New York Times for that information since Nabokov himself neglects saying how anywhere in the book and I don’t think I missed it because it is not a book one can rush reading but his closest description is that when spoken (at least by the name’s bearer) the word sounds like a small explosion although personally I might have described as a stifled sneeze but then who am I to correct such a great writer particularly one with such a distinct talent for description, depiction and generally florid writing as is evidenced numerous times throughout this novel?

If, dear reader, my humble efforts with that opening sentence caused you some difficulty then all I can say is that you might want to think twice before picking up a copy of Pnin. On the other hand those of you who enjoyed the journey and managed to resist the urge to obsessively check if I’d punctuated it correctly will probably relish the book; I certainly did. When I described the book to my wife I said, “There isn’t a sentence less than an inch tall.” It’s something of an exaggeration but certainly in the opening chapters Nabokov indulges himself; later on he settles down.

Pnin is an odd book. It’s certainly an odd novel. It didn’t start life as a novel; in fact the first the world got to hear from Timofey Pavlovich Pnin, professor of Russian Literature at Waindell College which the aforementioned Pnin consistently mispronounces as "Vandal College," is in what most readers would have regarded as a short story published in the New Yorker in late 1954; three more ‘stories’ appeared over the next year. The “Pnin novel” as Nabokov himself referred to the book (which at the time he intended to be called My Poor Pnin)wasn’t published, however, until early in 1957 and he struggled to find a publisher, which puzzles me because whether you describe the book as a novel or a collection of sketches or stories doesn’t take away from the exceptional quality of the writing. Doubleday finally published the thing. I think, perhaps, he might have had less trouble had Lolitaappeared first. Although written earlier and indeed already in print in France (in 1955 and in English) the first American publication wasn’t until 1958. I’ve read several books by Nabokov – Pale Fire, Transparent Things and Bend Sinister– but not his most (in)famous book although I have, of course, seen Kubrick’s film. Pnin forms the centrepiece of what one might call Nabokov’s American Trilogy comprising Lolita, Pnin and Pale Fire all of which feature academics, although a Professor Pnin only appears in the last two. I say a Professor Pnin because the Professor Pnin who appears in Pale Fire, the head of the “bloated Russian Department” at Wordsworth college is given a name check in Pnin and it suggests that these may be separate individuals even if – however unlikely this prospect might seem – they bear the same cognomen.

pnin21The book is broken down into seven chapters – they are called ‘chapters’ – each covering a different episode or set of episodes from his life: he gets on the wrong train, has a mishap with his luggage and mixes up notes for the lecture he is travelling to; he rents a room and has his teeth removed; he meets with his ex-wife who persuades him to look after her (but not their) son, Victor; he teaches a college class, visits the library and watches a film; he is visited by Victor who, although polite enough about it, isn’t the slightest bit interested in the football Pnin has bought him as a present which Pnin ends up disposing of “by defenestration” presumably with a good right foot helping it on its way; he spends the summer with fellow émigrés in a Russian community in the country and he hosts a party during which he informs his guests that he is contemplating buying the house he is currently renting – believing that tenure is now within his grasp – only to be told at the end of the evening that he is about to lose his job if he can’t work under an old friend who is joining the staff – which he finds he can’t – and so Pnin packs up and leaves. And that’s the book. In addition to charting these mostly disconnected events – the only thing they really have in common is that they are contained within the chronology of Pnin’s life during 1953 and 1954 – the narrator, who I shall return to in a moment, also fills in quite a bit of Pninian history. Pninian is not my invention, it’s Nabokov’s – he employs it numerous times throughout the book as he does with Pninise and Pninist (once).

The bumbling university professor has been done before: Professor Brainard in the original The Absent-Minded Professor jumps to mind – although that’s not how Nabokov describes Pnin (“It was the world that was absent-minded and it was Pnin whose business it was to set it straight.”) – or Professor Julius Kelp in the original The Nutty Professor but there are plenty of others like Professor Calculus from The Adventures of Tintin and Professor Kokintz in The Mouse That Roared. Pnin would best be described, at least if you restricted said description to a single adjective, as eccentric. He is that most beloved of characters, the outsider, and I don’t mean in a Camusian sense; I’m thinking more in a Mork-and-Mindian sense. Pnin arrives from Russia in 1940, the same year as Nabokov himself:

A special danger area in Pnin's case was the English language. Except for such not very helpful odds and ends as 'the rest is silence', 'nevermore', 'week-end', 'who's who', and a few ordinary words like' eat', 'street', 'fountain pen', 'gangster', 'Charleston', 'marginal utility', he had had no English at all at the time he left France for the States. Stubbornly he sat down to the task of learning the language of Fenimore Cooper, Edgar Poe, Edison, and thirty-one Presidents. In 1941, at the end of one year of study, he was proficient enough to use glibly terms like 'wishful thinking' and 'okey-dokey'. By 1942 he was able to interrupt his narration with the phrase, 'To make a long story short'. By the time Truman entered his second term, Pnin could handle practically any topic: but otherwise progress seemed to have stopped despite all his efforts, and by 1950 his English was still full of flaws.

America is a source of wonder to him and he delights in it, in the fact that he has become “an American” which, of course, he both is and will never be. He loves its gadgets and this affection is well expressed in how he takes to his new dentures (although it’s never explained why he felt the need to have his own teeth removed):

There were, as per plan, no lectures, nor did he attend the examinations given for him by Miller. Ten days passed – and suddenly he began to enjoy the new gadget. It was a revelation, it was a sunrise, it was a firm mouthful of efficient, alabastrine, humane America. At night he kept his treasure in a special glass of special fluid where it smiled to itself, pink and pearly, as perfect as some lovely representative of deep-sea flora. The great work on Old Russia, a wonderful dream mixture of folklore, poetry, social history, and petite histoire, which for the last ten years or so he had been fondly planning, now seemed accessible at last, with headaches gone, and this new amphitheatre of translucid plastics implying, as it were, a stage and a performance. When the spring term began his class could not help noticing the sea change, as he sat coquettishly tapping with the rubber end of a pencil upon those even, too even, incisors and canines while some student translated some sentence in old and ruddy Professor Oliver Bradstreet Mann's Elementary Russian (actually written from beginning to end by two frail drudges, John and Olga Krotki, both dead today), such as 'The boy is playing with his nurse and his uncle.' And one evening he waylaid Laurence Clements, who was in the act of scuttling up to his study, and with incoherent exclamations of triumph started to demonstrate the beauty of the thing, the ease with which it could be taken out and put in again, and urged surprised but not unfriendly Laurence to have all his teeth out first thing tomorrow.

'You will be a reformed man like I,' cried Pnin.

Pnin’s love for America is not all it seems though. He seems to want to love America on his terms. When he buys the football for Victor it’s not an American football – a prolate-spheroid-shaped football – but a spherical European soccer ball; he struggles with American humour, its mores and its general exuberance; the one thing he looks for in any dwelling or room he rents is silence:

The sense of living in a discrete building all by himself was to Pnin something singularly delightful and amazingly satisfying to a weary old want of his innermost self, battered and stunned by thirty-five years of homelessness. One of the sweetest things about the place was the silence – angelic, rural, and perfectly secure, thus in blissful contrast to the persistent cacophonies that had surrounded him from six sides in the rented rooms of his former habitations.

Nabokov’s America although accurately described, painstakingly so, in the same way some artists present us with ultra realistic sculptures that look like they might just get up and walk away, it is also a little unreal, a little idealised or perhaps stylised might be a better word.

pnin_cover_2951I mentioned earlier the book’s narrator and I should probably make clear why the identity of the narrator is important. Although he’s a third-party narrator he is not (or at least ought not to be if you’re playing by the rules) omniscient, there are times he gets inside Pnin’s head and I can’t see where he might have chanced upon the information. Pnin is not so obsessively private that he doesn’t share anything with his friends but neither does he share everything. The narrator has known Pnin since Pnin was “a thirteen-year-old gimnazist (classical school pupil)” although Pnin denies any knowledge of that first meeting in his father’s surgery; his father was an optician. The narrator’s memory is quite detailed though:

Do I really remember his crew cut, his puffy pale face, his red ears? Yes, distinctly. I even remember the way he imperceptibly removed his shoulder from under the proud paternal hand, while the proud paternal voice was saying: 'This boy has just got a Five Plus (A +) in the Algebra examination.' From the end of the corridor there came a steady smell of hashed-cabbage pie, and through the open door of the schoolroom I could see a map of Russia on the wall, books on a shelf, a stuffed squirrel, and a toy monoplane with linen wings and a rubber motor. I had a similar one but twice bigger, bought in Biarritz.

We don’t hear much from this narrator but every now and then he does stick his oar into the proceedings like in this section in the book’s first chapter:

I do not know if it has ever been noted before that one of the main characteristics of life is discreteness. Unless a film of flesh envelops us, we die. Man exists only insofar as he is separated from his surroundings. The cranium is a spacetraveller's helmet. Stay inside or you perish. Death is divestment, death is communion. It may be wonderful to mix with the landscape, but to do so is the end of the tender ego. The sensation poor Pnin experienced was something very like that divestment, that communion. He felt porous and pregnable. He was sweating. He was terrified. A stone bench among the laurels saved him from collapsing on the sidewalk. Was his seizure a heart attack? I doubt it. For the nonce I am his physician, and let me repeat, I doubt it. My patient was one of those singular and unfortunate people who regard their heart ('a hollow, muscular organ,' according to the gruesome definition in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, which Pnin's orphaned bag contained) with a queasy dread, a nervous repulsion, a sick hate, as if it were some strong slimy untouchable monster that one had to be parasitized with, alas. Occasionally, when puzzled by his tumbling and tottering pulse, doctors examined him more thoroughly, the cardiograph outlined fabulous mountain ranges and indicated a dozen fatal diseases that excluded one another. He was afraid of touching his own wrist. He never attempted to sleep on his left side, even in those dismal hours of the night when the insomniac longs for a third side after trying the two he has.

So, he is – or may become at some time beyond those being currently related – Pnin’s doctor! Please, reader, don’t take things so literally. What is important to remember is that this narrator is telling his version of events. We cannot completely trust him but then neither can we entirely distrust his retelling of events. Hell, he might even be Pnin himself!

In the section above I mention Pnin’s suspected heart troubles. Evidence of this problem crops up a number of times in the book and we find out that he has in fact had his heart checked. A shame that his heart could not be as easily replaced as his teeth and replaced by another American “gadget.” We learn of his problem when, during his summer break, Pnin meets up with an old friend, Professor Chateau:

Finally, as they walked along a meadow path, brushing against the golden rod, toward the wood where a rocky river ran, they spoke of their healths: Chateau, who looked so jaunty, with one hand in the pocket of his white flannel trousers and his lustring coat rather rakishly opened on a flannel waistcoat, cheerfully said that in the near future he would have to undergo an exploratory operation of the abdomen, and Pnin said, laughing, that every time he was X-rayed, doctors vainly tried to puzzle out what they termed 'a shadow behind the heart'.

'Good title for a bad novel,' remarked Chateau.

PninIf this was anyone else writing you might think that Pnin was a bad novel but Nabokov’s pedigree is such that, as with Beckett, you know – you just know– that there’s more going on here than meets the eye. Clearly here Nabokov is poking fun at himself – as Michael Wood points out in his afterword to my Penguin edition, that would have been “too mawkish a title for Pnin” – but he also notes this:

But there are shadows everywhere here, and it is the shadows, finally, rather than the haughty narrator and his hidden story, which remind us that this mournful and funny book is not a collection of sketches; that its very jokes contribute to its completeness, its fusion into an elliptical history of pain.

At first it seems as if this book might disappear under the weight of its own stylistic wit – some of those early sentences I really had to read carefully three times to know where to place my emphases – but Pnin rises out of the narrator’s loquacity and charms his way into existence. He may never quite be the book’s hero but for all he is frequently gently mocked (albeit affectionately by his colleagues and friends) he never completely loses his dignity even when, on holiday, he changes into a pair of Bermuda shorts expressly to play a game of croquet. As it happens he turns out to be the best player there which was unexpected considering the fact that he is something of a klutz the rest of the time.

Among the many tricks that Nabokov plays on us, probably the most puzzling one is in the last chapter where the narrator hijacks the story and Pnin is relegated to a couple of short scenes including his exit from the book. Very strange indeed. Especially when the narrator chases after Pnin’s car because how could that be Pnin chasing after himself but then how could the narrator know what Pnin was thinking unless he was Pnin? Unless Pnin is a fictional character and not a real professor but then that would make the narrator the author, wouldn’t it? Awww you’ll figure it out I’m sure. Or not. Or not care.

Nabokov wrote what would become the first chapter of the novel while he was struggling to complete Lolita partly as a relief from the dark obsessive world of Humbert Humbert – in his own words (in a letter to a friend) as a "brief sunny escape from [Lolita's] intolerable spell" in much the same way as Beckett took a break from his trilogy of novels to write Waiting for Godot(Beckett claimed that he "began to write Godot as a relaxation, to get away from the awful prose [he] was writing at the time"[1]) but it is also not unreasonable to conjecture that Nabokov’s new project was also a kind of insurance against the difficulties that he expected to encounter in trying to publish a novel that meticulously charts the seduction of a twelve-year-old girl by a middle-aged man.

Nabokov did, however, break a cardinal rule when he wrote this book: he based Pnin on a real person:

There have been several suggestions for real-life models, the most plausible being Marc Szeftel, an émigré Russian historian, who was a colleague of Nabokov's at Cornell (which is recognisable as "Waindell College" in Pnin, according to those who know both the actual and the fictional campus). It is certainly significant that Szeftel was Jewish, because it is Pnin's association with his Jewish sweetheart Mira, and his anguish at her tragic fate that dignifies his character more than any other single trait. But there were other things Pnin apparently had in common with Szeftel, such as his imperfect English, which would have seemed less flattering to the putative model.

It is fairly obvious that Pnin was not an instantly recognisable portrait or caricature of Szeftel, for this would have been impossibly embarrassing for both men, who were not only colleagues, but also collaborators on a scholarly project (a study of a medieval Russian epic, The Song of Igor's Campaign) and met socially in private life. There is evidence, however, that Szeftel suspected the character of Pnin was partially based on himself, and somewhat resented the resemblance, without ever explicitly complaining about it.[2]

But it’s not as simple as that. Nabokov also owes a debt to Cervantes:

[O]nly a few months before conceiving Pnin, Nabokov had reread Don Quixoteand lectured on Cervantes at Harvard. He had reacted with outrage to Don Quixote’s cruelty, to the book’s implicit invitation to its readers to enjoy Don Quixote’s pain and humiliation. Pnin is Nabokov’s reply to Cervantes. It is no accident that the book’s risible name, that “preposterous little explosion,” almost spells “pain.”[3]

“The history of man,” says Pnin, “is the history of pain.” Pnin is not a fool (and only a very shallow reader will conceive him as such) but he is often fooled and often hurt. A penguin out of water looks funny and is usually at its most vulnerable when waddling about on land.

When it was first published – and the reviews were generally favourable (you can read Charles Poore’s review for The New York Times below) – it did sell, but mainly because of the notoriety that was brewing concerning Lolita which was hard to get in the States and this must have seemed like the next best thing. I wonder how many were disappointed by the complete lack of sex in the book. No doubt a few. I think the most lascivious Pnin ever gets is noticing – I don’t even think he actually admires – “a girl's comely nape” in a library. When Lolita was subsequently published in America in the following year, it went on to sell millions, worldwide, and completely eclipsed poor Pnin in the public consciousness.

Pnin_chi_2007As Lodge points out, “a formidable body of commentary and exegesis has by now accumulated around this slim volume,” which is nice and deserved and necessary but far more than I can hope to cover here. If you love language and delight in what can be done with the humble sentence then you should read this book. You will not be disappointed.

One last thought: there are eleven squirrels in the book, now that can’t be a co-incidence, can it?

 



FURTHER READING


Charles Poore, ‘Books of the Times’, The New York Times, 7 March 1957

The entire text online.

TV Tropes (don’t let the title fool you but don’t be too sure they’ve got the narrator right either)

Jerome H. Katsell, ‘Pnin: The Perils of Repetition’, Toronto Slavic Quarterly, No.27

Akiko Nakata, ‘Rose and Aquamarine: Liza in Pnin, The Nabokovian 48, pp.15-19

Priscilla Meyer, ‘Review: Gennadi Barabtarlo, Phantom of Fact: A Guide to Nabokov’sPnin, WesScholar

Galya Diment, Pniniad: Vladimir Nabokov and Marc Szefte

Paul Bruss, Victims: Textual Strategies in Recent American Fiction, chapter 2

Ian Butcher, Radical/Domestic: Representations of the Professor in Willa Cather's The Professor's House and Vladimir Nabokov's Pnin, a thesis


REFERENCES


[1] Ruby Cohn, From Desire to Godot, p.138

[2] David Lodge, ‘Exiles in a Small World’, The Guardian, 8 May 2004

[3] Brian Boyd, Vladimir Nabokov: The American Years, pp.271,272 quoted in Stephen Casmier, ‘A Speck of Coal Dust: Vladimir Nabokov’s Pnin and the Possibility of Translation’, Nabokov Studies, Volume 8, 2004, pp.71-86

You say tomato, I say tomahto. You say stranger, I say outsider.

$
0
0

The Outsider

Beyond a certain point one cannot reconcile the demands of translation and of poetry, and one must opt for one or the other – A.C. Graham, introduction to Poems of the Late T’ang



A while ago I reviewed The Jaguar’s Dream which is a collection of, to put it simply, translations into English of poems from a variety of eras and languages. The poems were translated by the Australian poet John Kinsella who is not a professional translator but tackled the job purely for the pleasure of doing so. In several of his poems I found things I would have done differently. A simple example is his decision in his version of Supervielle’s‘La Mer Secrète’ to translate ‘Elle est ce que nous sommes’ as ‘It is what we become’. It is not wrong since French has no neuter; something which has always bothered me. Who decided that the sea was female? I wrote about it five years ago in my post French computer sex and have yet to find an answer to the question. Of course in prose I would have been perfectly fine with Kinsella translating elle as ‘it’ but poetry is another ballgame completely. My take on the poem is that Supervielle is using personification here and treating the sea as if she were a woman, which is perfectly feasible, but how would we ever know?

I only studied French for two years at school (and Latin for one). I would have quite liked to have continued my studies but I wanted an O-Level in Music far more. Besides all that was forty years ago. So I am a long way away from what little I did learn but some of it stuck enough to know when the subtitles are wrong on TV. On the whole though I’ve never given the subject of translation much thought over the years. I’ve read books in translation and assumed that as the men and women who were getting paid to do the job they knew what they were doing. Always been a bit naïve me. Since I’ve started doing book reviews though and noticing how some translations get praised over others it has made me curious.

The title of this post refers to the song by George and Ira Gershwin and the novel by Albert Camus. When I read The Outsider in my late teens I assumed that that was the book’s title and it came as a great surprise to me to learn that my American cousins call the selfsame book, The Stranger. The title in French is, of course, L’Étranger which, admittedly, looks like ‘stranger’ but I’m told that there isn’t a equivalent expression in English and that étranger means something between ‘stranger’ and ‘outsider’ whatever that may be. Why, I wonder, did English not simply absorb the word as it has done with so many foreign expressions like vis-à-vis, tête-à-tête and mano-a-mano?

I enjoyed doing research to support my review of The Jaguar’s Dream and thought it might not be such a bad idea to have a crack at translating myself so I typed ‘poésie française moderne’ into Google and picked the first poem that wasn’t too long. It turned out to be an extract from ‘Art poétique’ by Eugène Guillevic of whom I knew nothing. I cut and pasted the poem into a Word document and began. Here is the original and what Google Translate made of it:

Art poétique (extract)

Si je fais couler du sable
De ma main gauche à ma paume droite,

C'est bien sûr pour le plaisir
De toucher la pierre devenue poudre,

Mais c'est aussi et davantage
Pour donner du corps au temps,

Pour ainsi sentir le temps
Couler, s'écouler

Et aussi le faire
Revenir en arrière, se renier.

En faisant glisser du sable,
J'écris un poème contre le temps.

Poetic Art

If I pour sand
Of my left hand to my right palm,

This course is for fun
Touching the stone became dust,

But that is also and more
To give the body time,

So feel time
Flow, flow

And also do
Go back, denying oneself.

By dragging the sand,
I write a poem against time .

Okay we all know that Google Translate is going to mangle the text but for the purpose of a cursory read it does okay; you get the gist. We had a guy pouring sand from one hand into the palm of his other hand. It’s a pleasurable experience and a metaphorical one from all accounts but even just having a quick glance it’s obvious that there is a lot missing here.

The title was the easy bit. Ars Poetica is a Latin term meaning “The Art of Poetry” or “On the Nature of Poetry”.

The first problem I had was determining what the sentences were. On the surface it looks like the first five stanzas make up one long sentence leaving only a short sentence in the final stanza. I suspected that whoever had transcribed the poem had made mistakes. They hadn’t. This is how that opening sentence is translated by Google once all the line breaks are removed:

If I pour sand in my left hand to my right palm, it is of course for the pleasure of touching the stone became dust, but also and more to give body to the time, so feel time flowing , drain and also do go back, denying oneself.

sands-of-timeWhat’s obvious here is that Google Translate treats every line as a sentence and that affects the translation more than one might expect. We see this in line four where the line is translated ‘the course’ whereas the sentence opts for the idiom ‘of course’ which makes all the difference. The same goes for line eight where Couler, s'écouler is translated as ‘Flow, flow’ rather than ‘flowing, drain’. Couler means ‘flow’ or ‘run’ or ‘cast’ or ‘roll’, even ‘smear’. Écouler means ‘sell’ or ‘dispose of’ so ‘drain’ wouldn’t be such a bad translation.

Line six was the first one I struggled with:

Pour

donner

du

corps

au

temps

For / to

give

of / the

body

at the / to the

time

Du is a contraction of the words “of” and “the”. Au is a contraction of the words “at” or “to” and “the”. So is it ‘to give the body time’ or ‘to give [the] body to the time’. That annoying little preposition makes all the difference. In the first instance we’re simple allowing the body time to experience the flow of the sand but in the other suggests a dedication of the body especially since donner can mean ‘donate’. People given themselves to God or they give of themselves to others. It’s the difference between listening to music and giving oneself to the music. Or do we have a situation here like we have with L’Étranger? is Guillevic covering all his bases here, the physical and the, for want of a better word, the spiritual?

I found the fifth stanza particularly troublesome:

Et

aussi

le

faire

revenir

en

arrière

se

renier

And

also

the

do / be

return

in / to

back

to himself

deny

I decided to have a look at some other translations:

nous avons souvent souhaité faire revenir le temps en arrière
we often want to return time back

revenir en arrière pour faire les choses différemment
go back and do things differently

The notion of turning back time is a common one whether we’re talking literally as in The Time Machine or metaphorically. Renier is a verb that means to deny, renounce, disown, repudiate or, more specifically if preceded by se, deny oneself. What is the narrator saying here? If we turn back time then we are denying ourselves what? We have time in the form of grains of sand trapped in our hand. We can metaphorically halt the flow of time whenever we want to.

The last line is easy. It’s practically a transliteration: J'écris un poème contre le temps– I write a poem against time. But the penultimate line made me hesitate again.

En

faisant

glisser

du

sable

In

by

slip

of

sand

Faisant is the present participle of faire. Glisser—think glissando—means to slip, slide or even skid. Context dictates it won’t be ‘skid’ but I was curious why Google Translate threw up ‘dragging’ and I wondered whether or not the poet was suggesting we tighten our fist so that time drags, another common English idiom. In a computer manual they have the expression “Soit en faisant glisserl'appareil sur ce dernier”. Is 'faisant glisser' equivalent to the frictional-forceconcept of 'dragging' an item with the mouse? Probably. But do we really drag an icon? I’m thinking back to my Applied Mechanics days and the good old coefficient of friction. We slide things about the screen; we don’t drag them. Sand, however, would provide resistance. Sand has a friction coefficient of 0.60. Or am I getting carried away here? Perhaps.

This is what I settled on:

The Art of Poetry

If I pour sand from my left hand
into the palm of my right hand

the sensation is most pleasant.
Time has turned these stones into dust.

But there’s something else, something more,
which affords me the option to

experience time flow and run
out. Stop. Go back. Deny yourself.

Letting sand slip through my fingers
I write a poem against time.

I decided not to go for a literal translation for the most part but to get under the skin of the poem. At the same time I didn’t want to impose my own (possibly) narrow interpretation:

Every language, Guillevic tells us, is foreign. “Foreign, yes, because words are not made for the use they have in a poem. It’s the work of the poet … to make them say something different from what they would commonly say, by themselves.” – Carnac and Living in Poetry’, James Sallis, Boston Review, October / November 2000

The question begs to be asked: Is it possible to do justice to any author unless you are familiar with more than just the poem you have in front of you? On the Bloodaxe site it says this about Guillevic:

For Guillevic, the purpose of poetry is to arouse the sense of Being. In this poetry of description—where entire landscapes are built up from short, intense texts—language is reduced to its essentials, as words are placed on the page ‘like a dam against time’. When reading these poems, it is as if time is being stopped for man to find himself again.

That, for me, is a significant comment especially when examining a poem about the nature or art of poetry. Since I couldn’t find an English translation of the poem online (although I did run across a Russian one of all things) I decided to order a copy of Ars Poetica and while I was waiting on it arriving in the post did some research to see what I could find out about Guillevic.

Eugène Guillevic (Carnac, Morbihan, France, August 5, 1907, Carnac – March 19, 1997, Paris) was one of the better known French poets of the second half of the 20th century. Professionally, he went under just the single name "Guillevic". – Wikipedia

guillevicWikipedia lists 38 books. Predictably very little has ever been translated into English. I found four: Carnac (1961), Geometries (1967), The Sea & Other Poems (a compilation to celebrate the 100th anniversary of his birth), Selected Poems of Guillevic and, fortunately for me, Art Poétique (1985-86). Auster’s The Random House Book of Twentieth-Century Poetry does, however, include nine poems translated by Savory, John Montague, and Levertov. James Sallis, writing in The Boston Review, doesn’t find this deficiency surprising:

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.

Wikipedia’s brief entry has only this to say about his actual writing:

His poetry is concise, straightforward as rock, rough and generous, but still suggestive. His poetry is also characterized by its rejection of metaphors, in that he prefers comparisons which he considered less misleading.

A poet who eschews metaphors. Interesting. His first book was Requiem which was published rather late, in 1938, by Tschann. He worked in the Ministry of Finance (rising to Inspecteur d'Economie Nationale). His obituary in The Independent says:

This career, with all its legal and administrative rigour, had a decisive effect upon his poetry, enabling him to discard all "poeticality" and "rigmarole rhyming". He became a firm disciple of the Object, and disdained the Surrealists' new-fangled obsession with the Image.

And Sallis again:

Alterity may be Guillevic’s obsessive theme. He is, of course, among the most outward-directed and least subjective of poets, so it’s only inevitable that soon he’d fetch up against the world’s blank face and lack of affect. However stubbornly we confront or make demands upon them, the world and its things remain unknowable. In a poem from his second collection, Exécutoire, he writes: "To see inside walls / Is not given us. / Break them as we will / Still they remain surface." Like the sea.

I said that Guillevic is a French poet and that is true but French was not his first language. In her introduction to Selected Poems of Guillevic the American poet Denise Levertov notes:

LeveretovIt is curious to note that, outside school, Guillevic did not hear French spoken around him, but, in early childhood, Breton, and in adolescence, Alsatian, until he was nearly twenty. Jean Tortel … speculates on the possible influence on his work of this early detachment from the language from which he writes; perhaps, he suggests, it helped to form “the consideration from which he approaches words, the space he leaves between them and himself. For him each vocable (plate, chair, nightingale) is not something to be taken for granted, something everyday.” One might say, indeed, that his relation to words is truly phenomenological…

Levertov is very honest as regards her own efforts:

I am not fully satisfied, by any means, with most of my versions of Guillevic; but A.C. Graham’s definition of the translator’s choices [quoted, in part, at the top of this article] does describe my intention, which has been to render these poems in such a way that they would seem, in English, to be written in the language of poetry and not Translationese.

and even in a tiny poem like this she need to qualify one of her choices:

The little trout
slim1 as a penknife

can’t find its rock
in the great brook.



     1 Literally, “the size of.” (D.L.)

The book arrived quicker than I expected so I’m going to leave this here. I think I may well do a full article on Guillevic at a later date. I was keen, nonetheless, to see what Maureen Smith had made of this extract. Smith lives in France where she was a professor of English and American Literature until she retired in 2002. She is trilingual and her specialism is contemporary poetry. She has written articles in English, French and Spanish on contemporary writers and painters.

Here is her translation of this excerpt:

If I pour some sand
From my left hand to my right palm,

It’s of course for the pleasure
Of touching powdered stone,

But it’s also and more so
To give a body to time,

So as to feel time
Trickling, passing by

And also to make it
Turn back, retract.

By making some sand slip by,
I’m writing a poem against time.

Is her translation right? I never thought of using ‘retract’ nor did I see that he was talking about making time turn back (although I did wonder about it above) but it’s quite obvious here. I’m not sure about her use of ‘some’ in the penultimate line but I see that she’s gone with giving ‘a body to time’ which I wasn’t sure about.

All in all I’m not displeased with my effort. I think I’ve done a little more than translate. I’ve also partly interpreted (i.e. imposed my interpretation) and that could be viewed as a weakness; I know I said above that I tried not to but I don’t think I tried hard enough. I do think Smith’s missed something by simply talking about sand as ‘powdered stone’ though. What is it has turned the stone into powder? Okay, it’s the sea, but it’s the sea over time. After having a think about it I decided to change one line and add in a couple of tweaks. Here is my final (for the moment) version:

If I pour sand from my left hand
into the palm of my right hand

the sensation is most pleasant.
Time has turned these stones into dust

but there’s something else, something more,
which affords me the option to

experience time flow and run
out or stop and turn back the clock.

Letting sand slip through my fingers
I write a poem against time.

KinsellaI’ve removed the title because now I have the book I can see that the whole book is really one long poem made up of tiny fragments like this.

This has been an enjoyable exercise and I may do it again. I’m certainly glad I discovered this poem and have John Kinsella to thank for that. So I’ll let him have the final say. Here is a link to his poem ‘I read Guillevic's Carnac’.

Homogenised Tongues

$
0
0

tongue

“Look!” he said. “The people are united, and they all speak the same language. After this, nothing they set out to do will be impossible for them!” – Genesis 11:9











 

Looking ahead

Where will it all end? Well, at the end of The Forever WarJoe Haldeman envisioned an Earth where mankind has been distilled down to its essence: Man, a single version of humanity who reproduces by means of cloning. This is how Haldeman describes these future humans:

After the air cycled and we'd popped our suits, a beautiful young woman came in with a cartload of tunics and told us, in perfectly-accented English, to get dressed and go to the lecture hall at the end of the corridor to our left.

[…]

We sat for a minute and a man, clothed in the same kind of unadorned tunic the woman and we were wearing, walked across the stage with a stack of thick notebooks under each arm.

[…]

The man riffled through one of the notebooks and cleared his throat. "These books are for your convenience," he said, also with perfect accent, "and you don't have to read them if you don't want to. You don't have to do anything you don't want to do, because you're free men and women. The war is over."

When I read this book the first time many years ago I was too engrossed in the story to pick up on the fact that these two spoke with perfect English accents. It didn’t seem like a big deal at the time. Now it jumps out at me. The collective known as Man are of one mind as one might expect since they speak one tongue because language and thought are inextricably connected.

In another vision of the future of language, Orwell’sNineteen Eighty-Four, the government sets about to restrict human thought and its chosen weapon against inappropriate thought is language, Newspeak, their aim being groupthink. The word isn’t used in the book—it was coined in 1952 and the nod to Orwell is obvious—but the mentality is endorsed as explained by O’Brien:

By 2050—earlier, probably—all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron—they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.

In an essay 'The Future of Language', poet Saul Williams notes that “a Latin transcription of the word 'person' is 'being of sound'.” Even when I’m not talking out loud I can still ‘hear’ words in my head and often I can’t get to sleep because of them. Words are hugely important to me as a writer but I suspect that they’re also far more important to most people than they probably appreciate. Because they’re around us and within us all the time it’s too easy to take them for granted. There is a scene in the film Lenny (a biopic of the comedian Lenny Bruce) where, after the cops have taken away his cabaret card and the high cost of lawyers has driven Lenny into bankruptcy, he disastrously represented himself in court. In one scene, he pitifully begs the judge, “Don’t take away my words. Please don’t take away my words!” The words he was referring to were swearwords (often called, rather sweetly, ‘colourful language’) because, as the real Bruce himself this time put it: “Take away the right to say ‘fuck’ and you take away the right to say ‘fuck the government’.”

Language these days feels a lot safer than it used to be unless you live in a country with odd ideas about freedom of speech. New words are created every year and others fall into disuse—language is, and always will be, a fluid thing—and I can’t imagine even in the dim and distant future new things not needing names but I wonder about how colourful those names will be. Brannon Braga, one of the producer/writers behind Star Trekon television, said in 2001 as they wrapped up Star Trek: Voyager, "I don't think I could have written another line of Datadialogue for Voyager. I really had just about had it with the 24th Century." Why? Because the language was so controlled. Data says, “Shit,” once in Star Trek: Generations but I think that was about it as far as colourful language goes.

No doubt, like me, sometime during your childhood you got sat down with a tin of paints and left to entertain yourself. At first you use the colours one at a time taking care to clean the brush before moving onto another colour. Later perhaps it dawns on you to mix two or three colours in the tin’s lid but the more colours you mix the less interesting the result is until all you have is a pool of sludge. Why that should come as a surprise I don’t get because that’s always the colour of the water when we’re done.

In films and television shows when they want to distinguish between the past and the present they often switch between black and white and colour. It’s an effective technique and I’ve got nothing against it other than the fact that, in some respects, they’ve got it back to front; the past should be in colour and the present in black and Amazin Rasin Barwhite. Perhaps it was simply me being a kid but the older I get the blander the world seems. Walk down the chocolate and sweets aisle in Tesco and ask yourself where are all the packs of Old English Spangles have gone, the Cabanas, the Treets, the Aztec Bars, the Pacers, the Bar Sixes (and the Bar Noirs), the Nutty Bars, Secrets, Golden Cups, Five Boys, Mint Cracknells or the Amazin Raisin Bars… No, it’s just the same old ones, the Mars Bars, the Flakes, the Dairy Milks. Dull, dull, dull.

 

Looking back

Which brings me to my new book which I’m hoping very few people will think is dull, dull, dull. It’s called Making Sense and consists of nineteen thematically-linked stories, four of which I want to talk about today. ‘Zeitgeist’, ‘Disintegration’, ‘Funny Strange’ and ‘Monsters’ are all written in dialect: two—‘Zeitgeist’ and ‘Disintegration’—are in Glaswegian, ‘Funny Strange’ is in Cockney and ‘Monsters’ is in New Yorkese.

[W]hat is the difference between a dialect and a language? Perhaps the most obvious categorisation is size. Dialects are viewed as smaller subcategories of larger languages. So, Italian is made up of the standard version, along with Lombard, Bergamasque, Ennese, Messinese etc. Of course not all of these dialects meet the criteria to be considered a language but when a dialect varies so much from the language to which it is linked, should it not be given a language status? Dialects in many countries bear no resemblance to the language they supposedly stem from, whilst in others it is clear that there are only minor differences.

Take Lombard for example, it is considered by official standards to be an Italian dialect but in the Ethnologue publication it is listed as a language. It is the same for the majority of dialects in Italy, despite the fact that many of them are not immediately recognisable as being related to Italian – ‘The difference between a dialect and a language’, Veritas

I like the Yiddish expression: A language is a dialect with an army and navy. Hits the nail on the head, doesn’t it?

Ethnologue defines Scots as a language but to be honest most of the people I know speak a version of Scottish English and the simple fact is that nowadays in Scotland it’s not so much the words people use—their dialect—that identifies where they’re from but the way they pronounce them—i.e. their accents. Compare in your head Billy Connolly and Sean Connery and you get a pretty good impression of the east/west divide; there’s a north/middle/south divide too.

A rare video featuring both men

There are still some hangers-on—in Glasgow children are still being called ‘weans’ and I imagine in Edinburgh they’re still being called ‘bairns’—but little by little many of the expressions I was familiar with as a child are dying out; the occasional Scotticism creeps into my writing and I generally let it stand not so much out of a sense of nostalgia but because these are good words and they deserve to be preserved. So when I started writing my story ‘Zeitgeist’ which is about a man out of time it felt only right to give him a strong regional accent. Here’s how the story opens:

Ma wife sez Ah’m too serious.

“Whit d’ye mean, wumman, too serious?”

“Ah dunno, Ben, jist too serious.”

“World’s a serious place, hen.”

“Don’t Ah know it, but do yoo need tae be so serious?”

“Listen, hen, Ah’m ower forty noo. Ah ’hink it’s time Ah goat a wee bit serious noo an’ again.”

“Suit yersel’. Jist don’t come mopin’ t’ me aboot the meanin’ o’ life. Ah’m too busy gettin’ oan wi’ mine t’ worry aboot yoors.”

She had a point, Ah’ll gie her that but Ah doubt we wis keepin’ score that night.

Regular readers of my blog will have seen this kind of thing before in my occasional ‘Aggie and Shuggie’ posts which I used as a way of telling people about new reviews. I know a few people struggled with them at first and it’s perfectly understandable. It looks like I’ve forgotten how to spell. The simple fact is that a great amount of care and attention went into the writing of these four stories to ensure that a line was drawn between accuracy and intelligibility. The first thing I had to do was set down some rules for myself. Let’s look at one: the treatment of the digraph‘th’ which consists of two different phonemes: the voiced dental fricative (as in this) and the voiceless dental fricative (thing). Let me introduce you to three expressions:

  • th-debuccalisation (‘’hing’ instead of ‘thing’) – Glasgow
  • th-fronting (‘fing’ instead of ‘thing’, ‘bruvva’ instead of ‘brother’, ‘troof’ instead of ‘truth’) – London
  • th-stopping (‘dis’ instead of ‘this’, ‘ting’ instead of ‘thing’) – New York

Of course a Jamaican and an Irishman would say ‘dis ting’ too but with completely different accents and it’s impossible to find adequate spellings to convey the subtleties between one city (or even parts of one city) and another; there aren’t enough letters in the alphabet which is why dictionaries include all those funny symbols to tell you how to pronounce things. If you’re not careful what you end up writing becomes unintelligible. Take a simple term like ‘The Beatles’. In many British dialects we have something called t-glottalisation. This would mean that ‘Beatles’ would get pronounced as ‘Bee-uls’ with the tiniest of pauses inserted where the ‘t’ should be and when you think of how many t’s there are in words you start to see just how messy this all could get.

Another thing you have to bear in mind is grammar. In English you would say, “I was going, we were going” but a Glaswegian would say, “We wis goin’” whereas a Yorkshireman would say, “Ah were goin’.”

Of course I use the term ‘Glaswegian’ as if there is such a thing. The fact is that it’s a composite term just as ‘English’ covers a broad range of dialects and accents; they speak English in Birmingham, England and Wellington, New Zealand but the difference is striking. (I knew a Kiwi briefly—she was a temp in our office—and I said to her one day, “Seriously, do you have to try and use every vowel in every word?”) When I set down the rules for Ben, what I was deciding was how he spoke, not how all Scots should speak. The fact is his accent was based originally on a man from Kilmarnock, not Glasgow, but as I’ve not lived out west for many years I decided to stick with what I was more comfortable with. The differences aren’t huge but you’d never catch a Glaswegian saying, “Ah dinnae ken.”

32315062Cockney—or really more Estuary English these days since strictly the term ‘Cockney’ refers to anyone born within "the sound of Bow bells"—is an accent I’m familiar with only from watching TV; it’s the one Americans usually use as their default in sitcoms, the one that sounds like Dick Van Dyke’s ridiculous accent in Mary Poppins. Odd that with a whole country to pick from they’d jump at an area the size of a few city blocks. The Beatles are known the world over but I’ve yet to hear anyone rush to try to replicate the Liverpool accent. When you think of an east end of London accent probably the first person to jump to mind would be Michael Caine, although, and he admits this himself, his accent has been watered down over the years; compare how he speaks to, say, Ray Winstone and you’ll see the difference. Here’s a paragraph from ‘Funny Strange’:

Y’know wot’s wrong wiv the country? Plenty. There’s plenty wrong wiv the country but there’s one fing especially: it’s lost its sense of ’umour. We went frew two world wars an’ we could still laugh at ourselves but not anymore. Oh, I know there’re still stand-up comics out there, people callin’ ’emselves comedians at any rate—fird-rate jokemongers oo should still be workin’ the clubs—but they’re not funny, not proper like. They fink they’re a riot ’cos people laugh at ’em but that ain’t the same. I listen to ’em an’ I pity their audiences ’cos they’re anyfing but. They’re laughin’ at nuffin ’cos there’s nuffin to laugh at. They’ve all forgotten wot funny is.

The thing that distinguished this accent is h-dropping which is why ‘humour’ becomes ‘’umour’ but the fact is that it’d be pronounced more like ‘yoomah’. There are comics up and down the country and this text would’ve worked perfectly with a northern accent (north, as in the north of England) or a Scottish one but when I started writing it I saw him as an east end comic (someone like Tommy Trinder or Sid James (although he was actually born and raised in South Africa)) and so I stuck with it even though the character was based on Tony Hancock who was a Brummie by birth.

The narrator in ‘Monsters’ is something else entirely. In this story I decided to let the omniscient narrator get involved in the storytelling process and to ensure my readers didn’t assume when I used ‘I’ I wasn’t talking about myself I decided to give him a personality and a rather bolshie one too. I imagined him as a New York mobster circa 1930. That, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the story; it’s not set in the past and there are no mobsters but it made sense to me and, remember, that’s the title of this collection and its central theme.

Now, I’ve never been to New York and even if I had things are very different these days accent-wise. Some of it is due to the natural evolution of language—there’s a fascinating article here about that—but others are seemingly going out of their way to deliberately change how they speak:

The online Yellow Pages includes more than a dozen listings for “New York accent reduction” specialists, and searching “New York accent” and reduction or elimination on Google generates about 4,000 hits. The process typically takes at least several months, with as many as three sessions a week, and can cost from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. – Sam Roberts, ‘Unlearning to Tawk Like a New Yorker’, The New York Times, 19 November 2010

This isn’t a problem. I’ve seen a lot of films and television programs featuring New Yorkers with profound accents. The accent I had in mind, although I’d never heard him speak when I wrote the story, was Steve Van Zandt’s, at least the one he uses in The Sopranos. I met him in a wonderful little show called Lilyhammer in which he plays much the same character as he did in The Sopranos only this time with a lighter touch. Here’s an excerpt from ‘Monsters’:

Now befaw we go too fah down dis road let’s you and me get a few tings straight: I’m yer narratah; my name’s nonna yer goddamn business, but whad I say goes. We ain’t friends. Capeesh? I don’t do dialogue unless I’m in da mood—which, frankly, is rare—and if der’s a plot, well whoopee-fuckin’-do! (And if yer lookin’ faw a subplot... fuggedaboutit.) And as fah as conflict goes… I’ll give ya conflict. I calls it like I sees it. Bein’ da omniscient kinda narratah I’m da only one dat getsta see da bigga picture so if I’m in da moodta share just tank yer lucky stars and pay attention; sit on yer ass, keep schtum and read.

ParliamoNew Yorkese and Glaswegian in particular share something in common. They both contain a high percentage of Slurvian expressions. When the comedian Stanley Baxter recorded his Parliamo Glasgow! sketches in the seventies he regularly used ‘words’ like ‘noohossferra’ or ‘cudgiegoa’ as in ‘now who is for a’ and ‘could you go a’. It was all done for fun but the fact is that Glaswegians do slur their words and so do New Yorkers which is why the text above contains the expression ‘fuggedaboutit’ because it’s become a word in its own right meaning fat chance.

Writing in a dialect is hard. Of all the stories I’ve ever written these four have been redrafted the most. Essentially you’re creating an eye dialect for the page since there is no such thing as a Standard Cockney, Glaswegian or New Yorkese Dictionary to look up. Plenty of writers have had a crack at writing in dialect before me and some are more extreme than others. Here’s a poem by Tom Leonard who I’ve written about before, here.

Good Style

helluva hard tay read theez init
stull
if yi canny unnirston thim jiss clear aff then
gawn
get tay fuck ootma road
ahmaz goodiz thi lota yiz so ah um
ah no whit ahm dayn
tellnyi
jiss try enny a yir fly patir wi me
stick thi bootnyi good style
so ah wull

I have to admit that the first time I read him, which was in my teens, I wondered what on earth he was on about. He’s reduced language to sounds—there’s hardly a Standard English word in the poem—and yet, if you’re willing to persist it’s actually quite a profound wee piece. The key line is “ahmaz goodiz thi lota yiz so ah um” (I’m as good as the lot of you so I am). “Humans speak Language, and all are equal in that fact. The rest is status,” so says Leonard in his review of Language and Power. It’s true. The three dialects I’ve chosen to use are all the vernacular of the common people: Alf Garnett was from the East End of London, his American counterpart Archie Bunker from Queens and I suppose the Scottish equivalent—he’s certainly opinionated enough—would be Rab C Nesbitt from Govan.

No accent is intrinsically good or bad, but it has to be recognized that the way we perceive accents does play a role in our attitude to others. Different people have differing perceptions. So there are significant numbers of young people who see Estuary English as modern, up-front, high on 'street cred' and ideal for image-conscious trendsetters. Others regard it as projecting an approachable, informal and flexible image. Whereas RP, Queen's English, Oxford English and Sloane Ranger English are all increasingly perceived as exclusive and formal. —Paul Coggle, Do you speak Estuary?

These days writing in dialects has gone out of fashion. Readers find it distracting; it slows them down; they frequently have to reread stuff. Often they’ll pack it in and move onto something easier. Books written in dialect can and do sell. Case in point? The Help by Kathryn Stockett in which a Southern-born white author attempts to render black maids’ voices in thick, dated dialect. Reviews were mixed and her decision to attempt to write in dialogue questioned but I suspect that was more to do with the fact she was white and she was leaving herself wide open to claims of racism at worst and stereotyping at best.

Here are a few others:

  • How late it was, how late by James Kelman: written from the point of view of Sammy, a shoplifting ex-convict in a Glaswegian vernacular stream of consciousness.
  • Paddy Clarke Ha Ha Ha by Roddy Doyle: the story is filtered through the eyes of a ten-year-old boy employing the vocabulary and syntax of a child as well as a local dialectical register.
  • Londonstani by Gautam Malkani: its narration consisted in a total absorption of a particular kind of street slang that mixed Punjabi with English and Americanisms from MTV and hip hop. The first chapter is called 'Paki' and began with the words: "Serve him right he got his muthafuckin face fuck'd, shudn't be callin me a Paki, innit."
  • Foxy-T by Tony White: written in a hybrid mix of Cockney-Carribean-South Asian patios.
  • Brixton Rock by Alex Wheatle: written in South London vernacular or 'black English'.
  • A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess: narrated by a violent young gang leader, Alex, in an invented teenage slang which Burgess called Nadsat, and which Alex's doctor described as "odd bits of old rhyming slang … A bit of gypsy talk too. But most of the roots are Slav."
  • Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh: written in Edinburgh dialect in short chapters and narrated both by an omniscient narrator and in first-person inner monologues by various heroin users living on the city's inhospitable outer fringes.

I’m not sure anyone’s going to be stalking me for taking the mickey out of New York mobsters and the simple fact is I was aiming at not only a stereotypical accent but a slightly caricatured one; he’s not real. Ben, on the other hand, in ‘Zeitgeist’ and the nameless woman in ‘Disintegration’ are very real and I think their accents humanise them, for me at least. In other stories it could be me talking, there’s so little of the character on the page; these other stories balance that out.

Irvine Welsh, who wrote Trainspotting,said

The classic assumption of such fiction holds true: working-class people speak funny so are in fiction only for the purposes of humour. They do not have an internal life, therefore you traditionally do not have a Renton or a Begbie or a Spud expressing themselves in the narrative of a book.” –   Gerard Seenan, ‘Welsh accuses the middle classes of cultural bias’, The Herald, 30th March 1996

None of my characters are there for comic relief, not even the comedian. There’s humour in every story but there’s humour in every one of these nineteen stories; I like humour. Yes, they may be a bit of a challenge but here’s some advice from a student called Délaissé. She’s talking about how to read James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake:

I read the words, and that's a start. I read them out loud in my best Irish accent, and there is one thing I can tell you with certainty: if you want to get into it, do that. Really.

I know some people have tried that with my ‘Aggie and Shuggies’ and it’s helped and the guy who helped me edit ‘Monsters’ (he’s from New York) did that. Reading should be fun. It can be challenging too and, for me, the fun is in meeting the challenge. I see reading a text in an unfamiliar dialect as no different to sitting down and eating a meal in a strange restaurant. The first time I tried Indian and Chinese food it was unusual but now I’m used to them and enjoy them and I would hope readers of my stories come to enjoy them too.

One last Tom Leonard poem to finish with:

. in the beginning was the word .

in thi beginning was thi wurd
in thi beginnin was thi wurd
in thi biginnin was thi wurd
in thi biginnin wuz thi wurd
n thi biginnin wuz thiwurd
nthi biginnin wuzthiwurd
nthibiginnin wuzthiwurd
nthibiginninwuzthiwurd

. in the beginning was the sound .

Here’s a nice wee video where Leonard reads this poem and also talks about high- and low-status languages. He also reads and talks about his famous poem ‘Unrelated Incidents - No.3’, better known as ‘The Six O’clock News’.

Making Sense is available as a paperback from the Fandango Virtual website. An ebook will appear in due course. You can read ‘Zeitgeist’ online here.

Brief Encounters with Che Guevara

$
0
0

images

“Cry me a river,” Dennis said through his teeth.
“Beg your pardon?”
“Cry me a river, it’s an expression. Basically it means all you guys can go fuck yourselves.”
“Oh. Well. That’s awfully sentimental of you.”
– Ben Fountain, ‘The Lion’s Mouth’



Stories—stories of all lengths from hundred word long flash fictions to epic novels—tend to fall into one of two camps: the action-driven narrative or the character study. The ideal one might suppose is a story where the plot and characters don't interfere with each other and instead work in-concert to create something truly memorable. It can be done but it’s not easy and there’s a danger you could end up pleasing no one. I think Ben Fountain might just have managed to get the balance right with this short story collection. The blurb describes the book as follows:

With masterful pacing and a robust sense of the absurd, each story in Brief Encounters with Che Guevara is a self-contained adventure, steeped in the heady mix of tragedy and danger, excitement and hope, that characterizes countries in transition.

The Boston Globe echoes this when it says:

In this first collection the author brings the virtuosity of Greene and le Carré to tales of foreign adventures.

It’s the word ‘adventure’ that I’ve a problem with. Most of these stories take place on foreign soil but there’s not a great deal of action in them. I mean people go places and come back from them so, yes, technically there is action but, for me, what holds these stories together are the protagonists. Not one of them is a cardboard cut-out waiting to have his head blown off although, to be fair, most of them are in locations where the chance of their head being blown off is quite high. Let me illustrate. There are only eight stories in this collection, all a little on the long side. In‘Near-Extinct Birds of the Central Cordillera’ a young ornithologist is being held hostage in the Colombian rain forest:

[A]t last they led him into the main office, Comandante Alberto’s first words were:

“You don’t look like a spy.”

A number of Blair’s possessions lay on the desk: binoculars, camera, maps and compass, the notebooks with their microscopic Blairian scribble. Seven or eight subcomandantes were seated along the wall, while Alberto, the comandante máximo, studied Blair with the calm of someone blowing smoke rings. He resembled a late-period Jerry Garcia in fatigues, a heavy man with steel-rim glasses, double bags under his eyes, and a dense brillo bush of graying hair.

“I’m not a spy,” Blair answered in his wired, earnest way. “I’m an ornithologist. I study birds.”

“However,” Alberto continued, “if they wanted to send a spy, they wouldn’t send somebody who looked like a spy. So the fact that you don’t look like a spy makes me think you’re a spy.”

Blair considered. “And what if I did look like a spy?”

“Then I’d think you were a spy.”

Really they don’t care too much one way or the other if he’s a spy. Probably better if he’s not actually. If someone’s willing to pay a ransom for him then he’s valuable. It seems unlikely but if you don’t ask…

They scanned his passport photo instead, then posted it on their Web site with a five-million-dollar ransom demand, which even the hardcore insurgents knew was a stretch. “Sixth Front gets the Exxon guys,” Subcomandante Lauro muttered, “and we get the scientist with the holes in his boots.”

The rest of the story consists really of Blair trying to get on with his business. He came to the forest to look at birds and, well, there were birds everywhere so why not look at them here; here’s as good as anywhere else. As the soldiers get more comfortable with him and less concerned that he might be any kind of threat he manages to earn a few privileges, the return of his binoculars and his own guide/guard. Time goes by—days, weeks, months eventually—and his research begins to come together but at the same time he also starts to see that there’s more going on here than he first realised. When the American businessmen arrive the scales fall from his eyes. Yes, the story has a plot and once we readers have put two and two together a fairly predictable ending but I didn’t mind that so much because I got caught up in the character of John Blair. Or Joan Blair as the natives insist on calling him. You can read the whole story online here.

OAS_LogoThe second story in the collection, ‘Rêve Haitien’, has a similar vibe. This time the protagonist is Mason, an observer with the O.A.S. (Organization of American States) assigned to Haiti. So he’s not a prisoner but he is very much a stranger in a strange land trying to get on with the locals as best he can:

In the evenings, after he finished his rounds, Mason would often carry his chessboard down to the Champ de Mars and wait for a match on one of the concrete benches. As a gesture of solidarity he lived in Pacot, the scruffy middle-class neighbourhood in the heart of Port-au-Prince, while most of his fellow O.A.S. observers had taken houses in the fashionable suburb of Pétionville. Out of sympathy for the people Mason insisted on Pacot, but as it turned out he grew to like the place, the jungly yards and wild creep of urban undergrowth, the crumbling gingerbread houses and cobbled streets. And it had strategic position as well, which was important to Mason, who took his job as an observer seriously. From his house he could track the nightly gunfire, its volume and heft, the level of intent—whether it was a drizzle meant mainly for suggestive effect or something heavier, a message of a more direct nature. In the mornings he always knew where to look for bodies. And when war had erupted between two army gangs he’d been the first observer to know, lying in bed while what sounded like the long-rumoured invasion raged nearby. Most of his colleagues had been clueless until the morning after, when they met the roadblocks on their way to work.

[…]

Mason rarely won; that was the whole point. With the overthrow and exile of their cherished president, the methodical hell of the army regime, and now the embargo that threatened to crush them all, he believed that the popular ego needed a boost. It did them good to see a Haitian whip a blan at chess; it was a reason to laugh, to be proud at his expense, and there were evenings when he looked on these thrown games as the most constructive thing he’d done all day.

Most are content to beat him and enjoy their small victories without asking too many questions but then he encounters a doctor “a mulatto, a young Haitian with bronze skin, an impressive hawk nose, and a black mass of hair that grazed his shoulders” who doesn’t need any help to beat him. The doctor realises right away what Mason is all about and sees too that this might be a man who can be trusted and might prove useful. And so again, as in the first story, we get to see under the skin. Like Blair, Mason also gets an opportunity to do some good but, also like Blair, things don’t pan out the way he might have expected and his experiences completely change his world view. You can read part of the story here (or the whole thing if you have a subscription to Harpers Magazine).

The third story is a little different in that it’s set in the US. In ‘The Good Ones Are Already Taken,’ a Special Forces officer returns home on leave but tells his wife that he can’t sleep with her:

“We can’t do this tonight,” he told her. One of his arms held her shoulders, sympathetic yet sterile, exuding a brotherly tenderness that scared the daylights out of her. “Tomorrow’s fine, we can do it all day tomorrow and frankly there’s nothing I’d rather do. But tonight I can’t.” He paused. “I can’t make love on Saturdays.”

Her lungs collapsed—there was no air, nothing inside to form a response. She found a reserve at the very tip of her mouth. “What are you saying?”

“What I’m saying is—look, it’s sort of complicated. But there’s one thing I wanna make clear right now, I’m still your husband who loves you more than anything.”

Although this story takes place in the States the situation is exactly the same: how to get on with a stranger. In this case the stranger is the woman’s husband who has taken an interest in Haitian voodoo. It was part of his mission:

[A] standard hearts-and-minds tactic of the Special Forces [was to] contact and co-opt the local power structure. In Haiti this meant befriending the village voodoo priest, who turned out to be one Moïse Dieuseul in the remote coastal town where the team was based. Dirk’s near-coherent French made him the team’s point man for local liaison, and from their very first meeting Moïse showed a special affinity for the young American.

erzulieDirk proves very susceptible to Moïse’s teachings and very quickly begins a journey into Haitian voodoo which ends up with him married to Erzulie, a god, a lwa, the voodoo goddess of love.

Okay nuns ‘marry’ Christ in the sense that they’re not going to take husbands on the physical earth and they have given their bodies over to spiritual matters but, as his wife is quick to point out, Dirk is already married and he had made certain promises to her, vows no less, so how’s this all going to pan out? You can read the whole story online here.

‘Asian Tiger’, the fourth story, is set in Myanmar, Burma as used to be, home of The Myanmar Peace and Enlightened Leadership Cup which is “a bush league tournament by any standard, not even regular Asian Tour but a satellite, the dead-end fringe of professional golf.” This description is understandable once you know a bit about Myanmar:

Not the most politically correct place you’ll ever see, they were on everybody’s shit list for human rights and most of the world’s heroin was grown there. It was your classic Third World basket case, complete with drug mafias, warlords, mind-bending poverty, and a regime that made the Chinese look carefree, plus a genuine martyr-saint they kept under house arrest, that sexy lady who won the Nobel Peace Prize—whatshername? On the other hand the generals who ran the country were nuts for golf. After thirty years of incoherent isolation they were building resorts and courses by the dozen, leveraging the sport into hard foreign exchange. Now they were holding a tournament to boost the off-brand national image, but there was a problem: who in their right mind wanted to come? American pros of a certain stature were offered all expenses paid, plus a ten-thousand-dollar guarantee, plus a shot at the sixty-thousand-dollar first prize against what promised to be enticingly tepid competition.

Needless to say no one with any pulling power—Nicklaus, Watson, Norman, Woods—is interested in having their name associated with the place. So step up Sonny Grous. He thinks he’s there for two weeks and then General Hla makes his pitch:

[T]hey wanted Sonny to become Myanmar’s ambassador of golf, their consultant on matters of tourism and sport and their host to visiting dignitaries and businessmen. As compensation he would be provided a car, a house, reasonable expense money, and a salary of twenty-five thousand dollars a month.

[…]

“Gentlemen,” Sonny said, laying on his corniest Texas charm, “I would consider it an honour to be your golf ambassador. Just show me where to sign.”

Now what has he gone and gotten himself into? Once again we have a fish out of water. He may not be a prisoner but he has signed a contract. And in some ways that’s worse. Maybe not quite as bad as coming home married to a pagan goddess but still pretty bad. You can read part of the story here.

You starting to get the idea? When I reviewed his novel Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk (which he wrote after these stories but was published first here in the UK) my only real criticism as far as that book was that the author makes his point most convincingly within the first few dozen pages; he then he keeps finding new and interesting and then not quite so interesting ways to make it again and again. The short story collection isn’t as bad but there’s a strong theme of alienation running from start to finish; it never goes away. Take for example the last story in the book, ‘Fantasy for Eleven Fingers’ (great title), which is a bit of an oddity because it’s set in Europe at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries. As the story is in two halves there are two people who are the strangers as both have the same deformity: in the first part of the story it’s the pianist Anton Visser, who has six fingers on his left hand, and in the second part it’s the young Anna Kuhl who has six fingers on her right hand; she is also a gifted pianist but when we meet her she’s only a child of four and we get to see her grow up and come to terms with fame and its consequences. They are both Jewish, too, and although there’s never been a particularly good time to be a Jew in Europe things are definitely changing for the worse. You can read part of the story here (unless you happen to have a subscription to Southwest Review).

Anna Griffith has written quite a nice wee analysis of the story here. What I like about it is that it made me realise that despite the facts these stories are easy reads—and they are, there’re no huge sentences, he doesn’t use big words and he keeps his character set to a minimum—there’s more going on here; the stories have interesting subtexts and clearly weren’t just scribbled off in an afternoon.

This is illustrated quite well when Fountain talks about writing ‘Near-Extinct Birds of the Central Cordillera’:

“I struggled with that story. I always try to do too much. I mean, I probably wrote five hundred pages of it in various incarnations. – Malcolm Gladwell, ‘Late Bloomers’, The New Yorker, 20 October 2008

The same goes for the stories based in Colombia, Sierra Leone and Myanmar:

It's better to go. It would have been better if I had gone to Colombia, it would have been better if I had gone to Sierra Leone. You never know what you're missing. You never know what you don't know until you go. But you can't always go. You don't have unlimited time and unlimited money. And so you do the next best thing—you try to imagine yourself into these places. The way I did it was to read everything I could get my hands on and to talk to other people who might have information. If there were helpful movies or documentaries, I sought those out. I was just trying to soak it all up and imagine my way into it using that basic research and my own experience in similar places or similar situations. People write historical novels all the time, and in those the writer has to imagine himself or herself into a different era. I think it's just as valid an exercise to try to do that with space, with the caveat that it's always better to go if you can. But if you can't, I think with diligence and a lot of work we can get close to it. – Ben George, ‘A Conversation with Ben Fountain’, Ecotone 9

Every story is this book is well thought out, thoroughly researched, well-written and carefully edited. Two of the stories won a Pushcart Prize, and a third won an O. Henry Prize and, of course, the book itself went on to win both the PEN/Hemingway Award—for the best debut book of fiction—and the Barnes & Noble Discover Award. The best thing about this collection is the fact that it works as a body of work, always a hard thing to do with a collection of pieces that were never intended to be part of a group. My only reservation there is, as I’ve said, the last story because it’s set in Europe and not in the present but it’s a damn good story, possibly my favourite, and so let’s not be petty.

Looking at some of the reviews on Amazon—most of which give the book four or five stars—I can see the book isn’t going to please everyone. The two things most people will have problems with are that, firstly, the stories don’t have neat punch line endings or morals and most leave you with a feeling of unease—like the wife whose husband has come home married to a goddess (we never really find out how that resolves itself) and the same goes for Mason who returns to Haiti but can’t find the 329266doctor again; he’s left just standing there—plus, secondly, the stories are a little on the long side considering the payload they’re carrying; Fountain could have made his points in half the words. These are fair points but this is the guy’s style. Do you want to enjoy a large cappuccino or toss back an espresso? Do you want to take the scenic route or the motorway?

One thing I do have to say is that Harper’s cover is so much more eye-catching than Canongate’s. Didn’t like it one bit which is a shame because they’ve had a few decent covers recently. Thankfully most of us know better than to judge a book by its cover.

***

Ben Fountain earned a B.A. in English from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1980, and a law degree from the Duke University School of Law in 1983. After a brief stint practicing real estate law at Akin Gump in Dallas, Fountain in 1988 quit the law to become a full-time fiction writer.

Fountain's first published novel, BillyLynn's Long Halftime Walk, was released in early May 2012. The Oscar-winning screenwriter of Slumdog Millionaire, Simon Beaufoy, is adapting the novel into a screenplay a new Film4 project in collaboration with The Ink Factory, a U.S. production company. As yet, no director is attached to the project.

He is the fiction editor of Southwest Review and lives with his wife and their two children in Dallas, Texas.


The Flame Alphabet

$
0
0

The Flame Alphabet

The word is now a virus. The flu virus may have once been a healthy lung cell. It is now a parasitic organism that invades and damages the central nervous system. Modern man has lost the option of silence. Try halting sub-vocal speech. Try to achieve even ten seconds of inner silence. You will encounter a resisting organism that forces you to talk. That organism is the word. – William Burroughs, The Ticket That Exploded



I knew three things about this book before I sat down to read it: it was called The Flame Alphabet, it had a cool cover and it was some kind of post-apocalyptic novel where language becomes toxic. And that was it. I didn't know the author's name or at least it didn't mean anything to me and I forgot it as soon as I'd seen it. I had no idea what his writing credentials were but I liked the idea of the book and I wanted to see if he could pull it off.

Do you know why I enjoy Star Trek? Or to be more precise: Do you know what I don't do to stop myself enjoying Star Trek (and this really applies to all science fiction and what little fantasy I watch): I don't question things. In 'Encounter at Farpoint', Wesley Crusher falls into a holographic stream, but is still dripping wet after exiting the holodeck. I never batted an eye when that happened. I never throw up my hands when they sit down at an alien computer, clatter away at the suspiciously-QWERTY-looking keyboard and access whatever they need in five seconds or less. My disbelief can be flicked on and off as easily as Commander Data'semotion chip. If you can't do that then you might want to learn how before you settle down to read The Flame Alphabet because things happen in it that are implausible at best and are never satisfactorily explained. And I'm sure it's deliberate.

I'm a writer. Language fascinates me. What fascinates me the most about it is its inadequacy. I think that the fact that any two human beings can stand face to face and exchange thoughts and ideas is incredible—or as one of the author’s students said to him, "Hello is a fucking miracle"—not that either of them really, really knows for sure that what they think the other person meant is what that person thinks he's communicated to you. And it never is but it's close enough for government work. My wife says she loves me and I tell her I love her back and we're both sensible enough to leave it at that. Language isn't perfect but it's all we've got.

In 2005 Ben Marcus created a bit of a stooshie when he published an article in Harpers Magazine entitled: Why experimental fiction threatens to destroy publishing, Jonathan Franzen, and life as we know it: A correction. In it he states the case for writing that aims to make its readers think and not just feel:

In the left temporal lobe of the brain, below the central sulcus of Ronaldo, but above and tucked behind both Broca's area and Heschl's gyri, sits Wernicke's area, a tufted bundle of flesh responsible for language comprehension. It gets its name from Carl Wernicke, a German neurologist who discovered in 1874 that damage to this region could cause an impairment of language comprehension. Think of Wernicke's area as the reader's muscle, without which all written language is an impossible tangle of codes, a scribbled bit of abstract art that can't be deciphered. Here is where what we read is turned into meaning, intangible strings of language animated into legible shapes. [...]

In the literary world, it's not politic to suggest that the brain is even involved in reading, or that our reading faculties might actually be improved. Mentions of the brain imply effort, and effort is the last thing we are supposed to request of a reader. Language is supposed to flow pre-digested, like liquid down a feeding tube. Instead of the brain, it's the heart that writers are told they must reach in order to move readers, to stir in them the deepest, most intense feelings.

[...]

My ideal reader would cough up a thimble of fine grey powder at the end of the reading session, and she could use this mineral-rich substance to compost her garden. (italics mine – see below)

It's a long article but I see in it the groundwork for The Flame Alphabet. It's a book that certainly made me think. Not that I wasn’t moved by it to but many of the feelings it generated were cultivated by the thinking process; thinking and feeling are connected and we should never forget that. pi

If I were to compare The Flame Alphabet to a film, the one that jumps to my mind is Darren Aronofsky'sPi. I've just read a review of it which says, in part:

Make no mistake, this movie is weird and requires a thoughtful mind from the viewer.

I could say much the same about The Flame Alphabet: Make no mistake, this book is weird and requires a thoughtful mind from the reader. Pi is all about numbers. The Flame Alphabet is all about words. The common ground is, oddly enough, Judaism.

In Pi the protagonist Max believes that the universe can be explained in numerical terms. He's a scientist but not the only person who sees the bigger picture. He is approached by a very specific cult of Hasidic Jews who believe that there are 216 numbers (the Shemhamphorasch) which, when properly pronounced, will reveal the true name of God; they believe the number can be used to bring about the Messianic Age.

In the beginning, the Bible says, was the Word, however, not the number. In The Flame Alphabet our protagonist is Sam, a "forest Jew" as they are known colloquially; he refers to himself as a Reconstructionist Jew. The Reconstructionists are real enough—they are a progressive offshoot of American Conservative Judaism opposed to religious orthodoxy but emphasizing traditionalist practices—but this is something new and extreme. There is nothing to say when the book is set. One reviewer assumed that what we're looking at is an alternate reality but it could just as easily be set in an imagined future. Certainly the biomechanics they use in their worship only exist in the films of Cronenberg (I'm thinking particularly of the organic virtual reality game consoles known as "game pods" that we see in his film eXistenZ).

As Reconstructionist Jews following a program modified by Mordecai Kaplan, indebted to Ira Eisenstein’s idea of private religious observation, an entirely covert method of devotion, Claire and I held synagogue inside a small hut in the woods that received radio transmissions through underground cabling.

The practice derived from Schachter-Shalomi’s notion of basements linked between homes, passageways connecting entire neighbourhoods. But our sunken network existed solely as a radio system, feeding Rabbi Burke’s services to his dispersed, silent community. Tunnels throughout the Northeast, stretching as far as Denver, surfacing in hundreds of discrete sites. Mostly holes covered by huts like ours, where two members of the faith—the smallest possible chavurah, highly motivated to worship without the pollutions of comprehension of a community—could privately gather to receive a broadcast.

[…]

The rules of the hut were few but they were final. Claire and I were only to go together. We could neither of us attend this synagogue alone. The experience would not be rendered in speech, you could not repeat what you heard, or even that you heard anything. Bauman was firm on this, said our access would be revoked if we breached. You would not know who else received worship in this manner, neighbours or otherwise. Children were not allowed access to the hut. Their relation to you alone did not automatically qualify them. They must be approached separately, assigned their own coordinates

The device they use to listen to the broadcasts (which appear to be on some kind of constant loop emanating from some possibly numinous source) is generally referred to as a "listener":

The technology of the hut was a glowbug setup. The hut covered a hole and the hole was stuffed with wire. From our own hole came bright orange ropes of cabling, the whole mess of it reeking of sewage, of something dead beneath the earth. This wiring was grappled to the listener, and the listener, called a Moses Mouth by Bauman, even while we were instructed to never refer to it, was draped over the radio module. I’m understating the complexity of this. But on a good day, it just worked.

The listener is clearly at least semi-organic:

Sitting there as the day grew dark, the listener perspired on me, and one part of it, a fin canting from its rear that seemed encased by a soft wood, was so hot that I felt sick when I touched it.

One interesting thing about the Reconstructionists is that they reject the classical view of God. God is redefined as the sum of natural powers or processes that allows mankind to gain self-fulfilment and moral improvement.

When I read this book I hurried through this section but having finished it I now realise that it deserved more attention because when things go wrong at least one person in apparent charge of finding a solution is open to a more mystical approach, particularly since conventional science proves to be a washout.

The book opens some weeks into the action but at a critical juncture:

We left on a school day, so Esther wouldn’t see us. In my personal bag, packed when my wife, Claire, had finally collapsed in sleep against the double-bolted bedroom door as it was getting light out, I stashed field glasses, sound abatement fabrics, and enough rolled foam to conceal two adults. On top of these I crammed a raw stash of anti-comprehension pills, a child’s radio retrofitted as a toxicity screen, an unopened bit of gear called a Dräger Aerotest breathing kit, and my symptom charts.

This was the obvious equipment, medical gear I could use on the fly, from the car, at night. That is, if I even got the chance.

I did not bring LeBov’s needle. I had tried the needle and the needle did not work.

My secondary supplies consisted of medical salts and a portable burner, a copper powder for phonic salting, plus some rubber bulbs and a bootful of felt. Eye masks and earplugs and the throat box that was functioning as the white noisery, to spew a barrier of hissing sound over me.

Tucked into the outside pouch, for quick access, I placed a personal noise dosimeter, hacked to measure children’s speech. I wanted to be able to hear them coming.

Something has happened to the children. Sam and Claire have a fourteen-year-old daughter, Esther, and whenever Esther talks she makes her parents sick, physically ill. And it's not just Sam and his family:

Claire and I weren’t the only parents to ditch our houses and, in some cases, other items of value. The command went out in early December, issued in a final radio report before the stations went mute, and everyone was leaving. 

It's a plague of biblical proportions.

AlcatrazUnlike this blog the book begins in medias res and then jumps back and fills in the necessary exposition. It's a common ploy with scriptwriters in fact I can think of at least two TV shows I watched only last week (an episode of Castle and one of Alcatraz) where they did precisely that and then those tell-tale words appear on our screen: 36 hours earlier. But that's fine. Our interest is piqued and so we don't mind a bit of a wait till be get back to where we came in.

The book is written in the first person by Sam but this is a Sam some years in the future, a predominately silent future. He forgets to—or isn't especially interested in—answering all the questions I would have liked to see answered and in that respect he's not an especially reliable narrator. He talks about his wife, his daughter and that is about it. Only the delusive (and quite possibly deluded) Murphy muscles his way into the narrative as he does into Sam's life. If Murphy's even his name. Sam meets Murphy by what seems to be an accident—he just appears like another man out for a walk to escape his own kids—but Murphy has an agenda:

He was already canvassing Jewish families, probably had been for months, or even longer. Canvassing might not be the word for what he was doing. Cornering, manipulating, extracting. There is no precise word for this work. There can’t be. In the end our language is no match for what this man did.

He tells Sam that he believes the speech-delivered illness is related to "the flame alphabet," which is "the word of God, written in fire, obliterating to behold." If it is forbidden for Jews to speak the name of God; the logical extension of this is that all words are derived from the name of God and thus will be equally destructive if spoken or read. Why now? Perhaps it's a cumulative thing. It's only a guess.

Like Sam, Murphy has been medicating himself and testing appliances:

Murphy and I walked together and I lost track of our direction. He boasted of the insulation he’d installed in his home. The soundproof barriers with R-values above twenty, the speech-blocking baffles, some sediment collectors that were yielding a not uninteresting powder, even if the use of this powder was still beyond him.

For some reason it kept falsely testing as salt.

This mysterious powder appears later in the book although we never learn what exactly it is. It forms the basis of not a cure but rather a potion that provides some short-term alleviation of the symptoms: a palliative then.

Things go from bad to worse. The first children whose speech becomes toxic appear to be those of Jews, then all children are affected, then adults; finally it's not only speech that's potentially lethal but all forms of communication, written or even gestural. This is where people start to realise that they've maybe got things backwards and the problem is with comprehension and not communication. Oddly thinking about words does no harm which is why I say that it's probably not a good idea to start drilling down into the science presented herein. Accept it as allegory, parody, metafiction, a grotesque fairy tale or an act of God. Go with the flow.

I struggled a bit with the character of Esther. People, especially kids, can be slow on the uptake and deny what's in front of their eyes but I kept thinking what I'd be like if I was a fourteen-year-old—and I had as many issues with my parents at that age as anyone else—and I can't honestly see me hurting them the way she does. She's not all bad and there are times when she either keeps her distance or keeps quiet but she felt a little too alien for my tastes. Disasters tend to bring families together rather than driving a wedge between them. In an interview this is what Marcus had to say:

In The Flame Alphabet, the daughter, Esther, is in some ways a typical teen-ager, but her aggression escalates when her language itself is poisonous to her parents. As if teen-agers needed any more power. I wanted to test the love of a father, to see just what it would take for someone to abandon his family.

The notion of language as a virus is not new. William Burroughs (of whom Marcus is a fan) talks about it in The Ticket That Exploded. In a short essay Burroughs explains:

My basis theory is that the written word was literally a virus that made spoken word possible. The word has not been recognized as a virus because it has achieved a state of stable symbiosis with the host…

Viruses, of course, somewhat paradoxically ultimately destroy the cells they need to survive:

Is the virus then simply a time bomb left on this planet to be activated by remote control? An extermination program in fact? In its path from full virulence to its ultimate goal of symbiosis will any human creature survive?

PontypoolposterThe concept has also been explored in Tony Burgess's novel Pontypool Changes Everything where somehow a virus has found its way into human language, infecting certain words, and only certain words infect certain people. Once these infected words are said and understood, the virus takes hold of the host.

In his book Marcus never gets to the stage of ever properly explaining what triggers the crisis but obviously finding a cure when you're unable to communicate with another living soul is going to be problematic and yet somehow a group of scientists for want of a better word manage to organise themselves in a place called Forsythe Labs where Sam ends up alone having been forcibly separated from his wife at the time of the exodus. There he finds himself isolated in a lab free to experiment with written languages. No one explains to him or even shows him what to do but he susses out what's required of him and sets to. How he was earmarked for this task is never properly explained nor are his qualifications clear (certainly in interview Marcus suggests that he's nothing more than an amateur) but little by little he gets a feel for how things run there without ever communicating directly with anyone. Of course he cannot work on large sections of text

A drafting desk stood at the window, and in its drawers I found paper and the makings of a lettering kit. Rubber stamps, ink pads in different colours, and a set of baby sawtooth knives. Alongside these were a clutch of chrome pens, bottles of ink, an engraver’s kit, a set of reference books labelled with a poison symbol, and, most interestingly, a scroll of self-disguising paper—paper with small windows factored in that could be enlarged with a dial—that allowed you to see only the script character you were presently reading, and nothing else, not even the word it belonged to. It broke the act of reading into its littlest parts, keeping understanding at bay.

but over the weeks he's there he tests a whole variety of ever weirder methods of non-verbal communication. By 'tests' I mean experiments on men and women he thinks of as "Volunteer, test subject, language martyr… I would never learn what they called them, since naming of this sort had no application anymore, and anyway could not be shared." How could this not call to mind the human experimentation carried out by Joseph Mengele?

After a time he is set upon—"medically ambushed" he calls it—injected with a unknown serum and brought to see the man (or one of a body of men) who appeared to be in charge: LeBov; in time he comes to talk about this group collectively as "the LeBovs". (I do use the word 'appear' a lot but for the most part that's all that's left—appearances.) The particular LeBov he meets—and, for a short time at least is able to converse with (as I've said the drug was not a cure)—believes that all Sam's experiments with written modes of communication will bear no fruit. He's more interested in exploring a more mystical solution. Within the laboratory they have a Jew hole and nine other forest Jews along with their listeners; Sam and his listener (which had been stolen from his hut) would make ten, a conventional minyan:

Someone had been doing his reading, a little elementary Jewish procedure, put abroad into the world by our clever elders only to mislead the curious. It astonished me that people expected us to share our holy text, our rules and rituals, with just anyone, or even with each other. Sharing. What a tragic mistake. While the other religions begged for joiners, humping against the resisters until they yielded and swore themselves forever to their principles, we set about repelling them, erecting barriers to belief. It was how I preferred it. And LeBov had taken the bait. The so-called quorum of ten Jews required to ignite proper worship. This rule was one of our better decoys. I marvelled at how off track he was. Whoever was running Forsythe thought a Jewish tradition, invented in the first place, was going to assist their decipherment of the transmission, a rigorously difficult act not tied to mystical belief whatsoever.

They don't know exactly what they're searching for in the Jew hole, an ur-language perhaps that they could return to. We never get to find out. Sam escapes and returns home through the network of underground tunnels or at least to the general area; he settles in his hut in the woods and it's from there that he writes this memoir. To be able to do so he needs to obtain a steady supply of the serum. By now we've learned the unpleasant way that its core ingredient is produced. And that is where the book ends. With us wondering just what kind of future the next generation would be brought up in but then so many post-apocalyptic books and films end on a question mark like that. Why would he want to flee though? Would it not be worthwhile to at least try to see what might happen? His answer is really encapsulated in the last quote.

The core of this book has been done time and time again: following a disaster the hero gets separated from his family and despite the fact the world has gone to hell in a hand basket he's going to do whatever it takes to be reunited with his loved ones, e.g. The Day After Tomorrow where Jack and his team set out for Manhattan to find his son whose freezing to death in the New York Public Library. Sam is nowhere near as heroic but then, like the rest of us, he's just an ordinary bloke. What would an ordinary bloke do?

Perhaps because the protagonist is call Sam and the antagonist Murphy, Beckett was never far from my mind reading this text whether it be the figure crawling through the mud in How It Is or the desiccated bodies attempting to couple dismally in an ill-lit rotunda as described in The Lost Ones. And, of course, Beckett had his own issues with language. It came as no surprise when I found a list of Ben Marcus's top ten books to find Beckett's Stories and Texts for Nothing there which he describes as follows:

These thirteen non-narrative prose pieces are fatalistic outcries uttered by moribund outcasts awaiting oblivion: the resigned, the dying, and the dead —all saved from meaninglessness by the grave, eloquent music of a measured style that redeems, even as it snatches away, their humanity.

Needless to say Kafka also makes the cut.

Reviews of the book are across the board as you can see from this chart from Goodreads:

Goodread Chart

I've seen the book called "jaw-droppingly great", "a worthy addition to the speculative fiction canon" and a clear fan who read the book on a plane from El Paso to Providence said, "I wanted to find a microphone and read it to everyone sitting there, complacent and bored. I wanted to give them a glimpse of what literature can do: transport, unnerve, sate." It's also been called "too clever for its own good", an "uninteresting slog" and "the ramblings of an utterly bored mind." I liked it. I could've liked it more. Everyone—I don't care who they are—wants all the answers. We might be willing to make do with what the author doles out but we really want to know. That what kept people watching Lost, the need to know, but by the time we did we'd exhausted ourselves trying to add up all the pieces and no ending was ever going to truly satisfy us. The Prisoner (the original series I mean) has people guessing right down to this day because (and I know this was partly an act of perversity on McGoohan's part) it doesn't explain everything away. Well The Flame Alphabet is like that and that will really annoy a lot of people. If you're the kind of person who needs answers then maybe avoid this one. In an interview he goes some way to explain his book's paucity of facts:

Your writing is filled with references to tools and people who are left partially understood by the reader, with only small chunks of information available. For you, are these details also partially understood? Do you know information the reader does not?

Hm, no. I’m not playing any kind of game where I try to leave the reader out of the master plan. But if a detail doesn’t add dramatic energy then I see no reason to spoil the writing with it. I guess I prefer one or two sharp details, rather than a laundry list of “facts” about a character, since this frustrates me when I read, being asked to collect data that may not matter.

Of course when you label someone an "experimental" writer that's obviously another thing that's going to put people off. As far as I'm concerned every time I sit down to write it's an experiment that can, and often does, go badly wrong. Marcus writes:

This issue of experimentalism is hollow to me.  I can’t figure out the actual content of the problem.  I’ve never tried to write anything experimental, because I don’t even know what that would be.  I’ve just written what most compels me at the time, what I’d most want to read myself.  Does anyone self-identify as experimental?  Anyone?

The Flame Alphabet is actually a fairly straightforward narrative. It has a plot, a beginning, a middle and an end. It has a good guy and a bad-guy-come-mad-scientist. It's actually more of a page-turner than you might imagine. Marcus will probably never shake the "experimental" label but to my mind he's just a regular writer like the rest of us struggling to find ways to extract something worthwhile from all the clutter in his head. In an interview where he's asked about the Harper's article he says:

I think the basic question is how to write substantive books that you want to write without alienating people. I don’t feel that readers need to be forced to read anything, and if something feels didactic to them, they shouldn’t read it. In the end I think the challenge and problem and responsibility comes back to the writer, and the writer needs to accept how much they care about something. The artistic challenge is whether they can find a delivery system for their material that is engaging vital and entertaining without forfeiting the issues that started their novel off.

You can read an excerpt from the book here and a second one here. There are several interviews online, some of which I've quoted from and linked to, but here is a particularly long one I enjoyed. Finally here are two wee videos to wind up, the first is an interview with Marcus; the second is a short animation based on The Flame Alphabet by Erin Cosgrove, a sort of trailer.

***

Marcus_01_bodyBen Marcus is the author of four books of fiction, Notable American Women, The Father Costume,The Age of Wire and Stringand The Flame Alphabet. His stories, essays, and reviews have appeared in Harper's, The New Yorker, The Paris Review, The Believer, The New York Times, Salon, McSweeney's,and Tin House. He is the editor of The Anchor Book of New American Short Stories. Marcus is a 2009 recipient of a grant for Innovative Literature from the Creative Capital Foundation. He has also received a Whiting Writers Award, a National Endowment for the Arts Fellowship in fiction, and three Pushcart Prizes. Marcus is an associate professor in the School of the Arts at Columbia University.

The Poetry of Harold Pinter

$
0
0

Pinter

Pinter’s not a poet, but he doesn’t know it. – Daniel Finkelstein, The Times, 16 March 2005



In August 1950 two poems appeared in Poetry London 5—'New Year in the Midlands' and 'Chandeliers and Shadows'—both accredited to a new poet to the market[1], one Harold Pinta. This was not a typo although "stanzas from the two published poems were interchanged"[2] which must have been upsetting for the nineteen-year-old poet and I can imagine how he might have felt since my first published poem appeared sans title. Pinter had opted to use the pseudonym 'Pinta' "largely because one of his aunts was convinced—against all the evidence[3]—that the family came from distinguished Portuguese ancestors, the da Pintas,[4] an odd choice since, in the UK at least, everyone would have looked at 'Pinta' and read it as in 'pint of milk', at least I did.

So, like his long-time friend and mentor, Samuel Beckett, Harold Pinter began and ended his career as a writer writing poetry.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Front Row, the seventy-four-year-old said: "I think I've stopped writing plays now, but I haven't stopped writing poems."

"I think I've written twenty-nine plays. I think it's enough for me. I think I've found other forms now."[5]

He died when he was seventy-eight. Pinter's earliest influences were Yeats and Dylan Thomas. In his twenties he was very much taken by the poetry of WS Graham (with whom he became friends)—which he described as "ravished by language and the conundrum of language."[6] Later still, of all people, Philip Larkin's poetry called out to him:

In the 1960s, Philip Larkin was surprised that Pinter was an enthusiastic (and influential) advocate of his poetry. Since the plays were 'rather modern', he wrote to Pinter, 'I shouldn't have thought my grammar school Betjeman would have appealed to you.' Unlike Pinter [who went to the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (an institution he found intolerable)], Larkin had been to Oxford, where he learned that the mixing of Modern and Traditional was 'not done'.[7]

Pinter's output was not huge—his Collected Poems and Prose (from 1996)—only contains forty-six poems. The twenty-four-page War (2003) adds another handful to this list (the book consists of a speech, seven poems written immediately before the 2003 Iraq war, and one poem on the 1991 Gulf War) plus the Six Poems for A in 2007. So, less than a hundred still available in print although the complete total is probably not much higher. About the same as Beckett then. It is easy to see how the poetry of these two great writers could get passed over.

The question is: Just because Pinter is a great playwright does that automatically make him a great poet? The answer is obviously no but surely you would expect a talented wordsmith like Pinter to at least write decent poetry. Not everyone thinks so. Here is an excerpt from the 2004 TS Eliot lecture 'The Dark Art of Poetry' in which Don Paterson does not mince his words:

Don PatersonThe way forward, it seems to me, lies in the redefinition of ‘risk’ To take a risk in a poem is not to write a big sweary outburst about how dreadful the war in Iraq is, even if you are the world’s greatest living playwright. This poetry is really nothing but a kind of inverted sentimentalism—that’s to say by the time it reaches the page, it’s less real anger than a celebration of one’s own strength of feeling. Since it tries to provoke an emotion of which its target readers are already in high possession, it will change no-one’s mind about anything; more to the point, anyone can do it.[8]

Pinter's response? Surprisingly restrained:

True to form, the playwright reacted with some asperity to Paterson's analysis. "You want me to comment on that?" he said from his west London home. "My comment is: 'No comment.' "[9]

The poem I imagine Paterson is referring to is this one:

American Football

(A Reflection upon the Gulf War)

Hallelullah!
It works.
We blew the shit out of them.

We blew the shit right back up their own ass
And out their fucking ears.

It works.
We blew the shit out of them.
They suffocated in their own shit!

Hallelullah.
Praise the Lord for all good things.

We blew them into fucking shit.
They are eating it.

Praise the Lord for all good things.

We blew their balls into shards of dust,
Into shards of fucking dust.

We did it.

Now I want you to come over here and kiss me on the mouth.

Okay, it's not pretty poem but the subject matter is not pretty. It was famously rejected for publication by the Independent, the Observer, the Guardian (on the grounds it was 'a family newspaper'), the New York Review of Books and the London Review of Books. Andrew O'Hehir, in his review of Various Voices: Prose, Poetry, Politics, writes:

If the dense and difficult poems of his youth are often too clever by half, they nonetheless display a mind rich with images and a remarkable facility with language. Recent poems like ''American Football' or 'Death' have an almost electrical clarity and intensity.[10]

Michael Billington reproduces the poem in his book Life and Work of Harold Pinter and has this to say about it:

What Pinter is clearly doing in American Football is satirising, through language that is deliberately violent, obscene, sexual and celebratory, the military triumphalism that followed the Gulf War and, at the same time, counteracting the stage-managed euphemisms through which it was projected on television. […] Pinter's poem, by its exaggerated tone of jingoistic, anally obsessed bravado, reminds us of the weasel-words used to describe the war on television and of the fact that the clean, pure conflict which the majority of the American people backed at the time was one that existed only in their imagination. Behind the poem lies a controlled rage: that it was rejected, even by those who sympathised with its sentiments, offers melancholy proof that hypocrisy is not confined to governments and politicians.[11]

Michael Wood, however, in his review of Billington's book, said he thought the poem "truly dire"[12] and was not swayed by Billington's arguments:

Billington’s piety about Pinter is all but crippling, turning what might have been a portrait into a long obeisance.[13]

traditional-apple-pieHave you ever listened to American GI's talk? I imagine the same can be said for all soldiers. They are a foul-mouthed bunch. I found an old newspaper clipping from 1916 going on about the language used by the troops. Apparently Joan of Arc complained about how the English solders cussed back in the late middle ages. Of course we have no idea who the narrator is in this poem. I suspect the 'me' in the final line is Mom since we all know the slang expression, 'You kiss your momma with that mouth?' “We’re fighting for mom and apple pie.” That’s what the American GI’s often said when asked what they were fighting for during World War II. Either that or for God and country. And, of course, that really underlines the satire here.

Over on his site Nigeness, Nige finishes his remarks following Pinter's death with this final comment:

As for Pinter's 'poetry'—had it been written by anyone else, it would surely never have been taken seriously for a moment, would it?[14]

It's a fair question and I have to say that if anyone else had sent in that poem to those esteemed newspapers they wouldn't have even received any reply let alone the polite rejections Pinter mentions in his article 'Blowing up the Media' which first appeared in Index on Censorship and is reproduced on his website here.

Paterson is, of course, entitled to his opinion (as are all the others) but his real problem with Pinter's poetry stems from Paterson's definition of what poetry is. I don't support the school of thought that says, "It's a poem because I say so," but I do argue for a broad definition of poetry. I think poetry can, for example, be ugly and I see no fundamental difference between Pinter's 'American Football' and John Cooper Clarke's'Evidently Chickentown'. The tone is different but the underlying message in John Cooper Clarke's poem is every bit as serious and heartfelt as is Pinter's. Now just try and imagine John Cooper Clarke reading 'American Football'. The singer-songwriter PJ Harvey cites Pinter's poetry as a source of inspiration:

I'm inspired by the other great writers I go back to and read again and again, and think how did they do that?"

Such as? She indicates a volume of Harold Pinter's poetry that she has brought with her. "Pinter leaves me speechless. Just unbelievable. A poem like 'American Football' or 'The Disappeared'.[15]

Do I like this poem? No, I can't say I do, but since when has a poem's likeability been the sole criterion by which we judge its quality? I'm not fond of its scatological language and yet, in my own anti-war poem I have a dog peeing at the base of a monument erected to commemorate fallen heroes so I can see exactly where Pinter is coming from here, besides, for some strange reason, other than 'pissed off', there aren't nearly as many vulgar expressions referencing urine as there are faeces.

In her biography on Voltaire, Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" and Hall's quote is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech, something about which Americans in particular are highly vocal. I'm not here to defend Pinter's politics but I am here to defend his poetic choices. And choice is the keyword here. Artists frequently simplify their style (take the naïve artists as an example) not because that's the best they can do but because that style is intended to have a certain effect. I believe the same is true in Pinter's choice to use coarse and frankly unpoetic language here.

In his essay 'Introduction to Pinter's Poetry' Jean-Marie Gleize says that for Pinter "especially in the last few years, a poem could be an in-your-face, very violent and heavily charged platform, and that a poem could work as a weapon, a weapon of attack, a combat weapon."[16] And if you have nothing left bar words and shit, well just ask the prisoners in the Maze prison in the mid-seventies how effective they can be.

Here's a selection of Pinter's war poetry opening with a powerful rendition of 'American Football' by Michael Sheen (which perfectly captures the "yee-haw apocalypse mandated by religious bigotry and bloodlust"[17] tone of poem) but hang on for Gina McKee's beautiful rendition of the (to my mind) rather Owen-esque 'Meeting' at the end:

Let's have a look at a very different poem now, a love poem, written the year before he wrote 'American Football' for his second wife Dame Antonia Fraser:

It Is Here

(For A)

What sound was that?

I turn away, into the shaking room.

What was that sound that came in on the dark?
What is this maze of light it leaves us in?
What is this stance we take,
to turn away and then turn back?
What did we hear?

It was the breath we took when we first met.

Listen. It is here.

They had been together about fifteen years when he wrote the poem and she admits that it is "nostalgic for when we first got together,"[18] a poem celebrating requited married love.The poem recalls the coup de foudre at Pinter's first meeting with his future wife and, of course, it will never mean as much to anyone else but that doesn't make it a bad poem; it is a personal poem and if anyone else gets anything out of it then bully for them.

It is interesting to hear him read the poem (which you can here (and then compare it to Antonia Fraser's interpretation)) because he doesn't read it like any love poem you have ever heard before. There's no sentimentalism here.

Here are three more poems written for his wife:

Here's what Pinter had to say about why he was a fan of Beckett's work:

The farther he goes the more good it does me. I don’t want philosophies, tracts, dogmas, creeds, ways out, truths, answers, nothing from the bargain basement. He is the most courageous, remorseless writer going and the more he grinds my nose in the shit the more I am grateful to him. He’s not fucking me about, he’s not leading me up any garden path, he’s not slipping me a wink, he’s not flogging me a remedy or a path or a revelation or a basinful of breadcrumbs, he’s not selling me anything I don’t want to buy—he doesn’t give a bollock whether I buy or not—he hasn’t got his hand over his heart. Well, I’ll buy his goods, hook, line and sinker, because he leaves no stone unturned and no maggot lonely. He brings forth a body of beauty. His work is beautiful. (italics mine)[19]

One could say the same of Pinter. It doesn't matter what Pinter is talking about, be it love or war, he never has his hand over his heart; he's not that kind of writer. He was certainly an angry young man—he's sometimes linked with that group—and he died an angry old man but as his wife pointed out:

There was never any rage or anger of the 'Where's my shirt?' variety. Harold for all his combativeness is completely unexplosive.[20]

For me one of his most powerful poems is actually a found poem. It's called 'Death' and was written just after the registration of his father's death at Hove Town Hall in 1997:

Death
ukpga
(Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953)

Where was the body found?
Who found the dead body?
Was the dead body dead when found?
How was the dead body found?

Who was the dead body?

Who was the father or daughter or brother
Or uncle or sister or mother or son
Of the dead and abandoned body?

Was the body dead when abandoned?
Was the body abandoned?
By whom had it been abandoned?

Was the dead body naked or dressed for a journey?

What made you declare the dead body dead?
Did you declare the dead body dead?
How well did you know the dead body?
How did you know the body was dead?

Did you wash the dead body?
Did you close both its eyes?
Did you bury the body?
Did you leave it abandoned?
Did you kiss the dead body?

Don't you find it strange that the love poem for his wife is written in the same interrogatory style? At first it's a son's lament over the loss of his father but later one he chose to end his booklet War with—for which he was awarded the Wilfred Owen Poetry Award—minus the subtitle and the date. Suddenly the poem takes on a whole different meaning.

But could Pinter write a real poem? Certainly his early derivate verse was but what about later on? Here's one from 2006 which looks fairly real to me if you don't mind overlooking the aside in the final stanza. Hell, it even (half-) rhymes:

Lust

There is a dark sound
Which grows on the hill
You turn from the light
Which lights the black wall.

Black shadows are running
Across the pink hill
They grin as they sweat
They beat the black bell.

You suck the wet light
Flooding the cell
And smell the lust of the lusty
Flicking its tail.

For the lust of the lusty
Throws a dark sound on the wall
And the lust of the lusty
– its sweet black will –
Is caressing you still.

Or what about this one from 1998 with its alliteration and internal rhymes?

The Disappeared

Lovers of light, the skulls,
The burnt skin, the white
Flash of the night,
The heat in the death of men.

The hamstring and the heart
Torn apart in a musical room,
Where children of the light
Know that their kingdom has come.

Surely this rhymer counts?

Body

Laughter dies out but is never dead
Laughter lies out the back of its head
Laughter laughs at what is never said
It trills and squeals and swills in your head
It trills and squeals in the heads of the dead
And so all the lies remain laughingly spread
Sucked in by the laughter of the severed head
Sucked in by the mouths of the laughing dead [21]

And what about this frankly playful (and yet still very serious) one from the same year?

Order

Are you ready to order?

No there is nothing to order
No I'm unable to order
No I'm a long way from order

And while there is everything,
And nothing, to order,
Order remains a tall order

And disorder feeds on the belly of order
And order requires the blood of disorder
And "freedom" and ordure and other disordures
Need the odour of order to sweeten their murders

Disorder a beggar in a darkened room
Order a banker and a castiron womb
Disorder an infant in a frozen home
Order a soldier in a poisoned tomb

Now this one sounds like Pinter. There is a common thread that runs between this poem, 'Death' and 'American Football' and Noel Malcolm hits the nail on the head in his review of War:

Pinter's poetry tends anyway to work by repetition and amplification, so such devices as this are well suited to it, generating incremental unease.[22]

Was Pinter a poet? In his obituary in The Guardian Michael Billington—who we have seen already was a fan—opens with:

PinterHarold Pinter, who has died at the age of 78, was the most influential, provocative and poetic dramatist of his generation. He enjoyed parallel careers as actor, screenwriter and director and was also, especially in recent years, a vigorous political polemicist campaigning against abuses of human rights. But it is for his plays that he will be best remembered and for his ability to create dramatic poetry out of everyday speech. (italics mine)[23]

The word 'poetry' or some variation thereof appears several other times in the article although he's certainly not the only one to use the adjective 'poetic' when talking about Pinter's plays. William Baxter writes:

I think his greatest poetry is in the drama. His plays are full of wonderful poetry whether it's topographical with long reflections on the landscapes of London, or whether it is reflections on the past or what may not have occurred between two human beings.[24]

A poet is not simply someone who writes poetry. Poetry is bigger than that and I do get frustrated by those who want to bottle it and market it. I am with Todd Swift who wrote to The Guardian in response to their article covering Don Paterson's speech and said (in part):

Paterson is wrong because he is so intent on limiting what a poem can and should be. In fact, it is when poetry (or music) is evolving and dynamically open to a rich variety of different voices that it thrives best. Political poetry has always been one part of poetry's role, and Pinter's work, although urgently blunt, is in that tradition.[25]

Will Pinter's poetry be remembered for as long as his plays? Doubtful but it's really only timeless writing that manages to survive. Topical writing and satire rarely lasts longer than the decade it was written in, certainly not the generation. A poem's greatness—its worthiness if you like—has little to do with whether or not the public take it to their heart—few of them could tell a good poem from a bad one but they know what they like, what moves them—and so I could see 'Death' lasting, maybe even 'It is Here'; there are certainly enough copies of the latter kicking around online and now I've added one more.

Pinter's verse is … about process; it's Pinter acting out, as it were, the contrary facts of being inside the situation, the context of the poem, the context of the politics. It is in essence dramatic and vatic; read it out loud, and work your way through the fissures to get at the tissue of the man. Pinter is never about epiphany and revelation, and much more about concealment. Despite the surface of the language, the poems are essentially about withholding something. The language of the poems can be thin and etiolated, straightforward too; like Carver's it can be artless, and where Carver derided cheap tricks, one can feel that Pinter, too, was after something direct, intimate and oral. He wanted to get under our skin as quickly as possible. To get in, and do the job.[26]

I've not touched on his poetry about cricket (which he adored) as I know nothing about the subject. "Cricket is the greatest thing God created on earth," Pinter once said. "Certainly greater than sex, although sex isn't too bad either."[27] I really don't get this "mini-masterpiece",[28] for example:

I saw Len Hutton in his prime
Another time
another time

I suppose it would help if I knew who Len Hutton was.

There is quite a bit of poetry on Pinter's website and I would recommend spending a little time reading through what's there; the poems themselves and the various analyses by others.

In 2005 Pinter contacted the actor Julian Sands and "asked him to read a few at a charity event (Pinter's throat cancer was by then too harold-pinter-stage-reviewadvanced for him to read them himself, but he worked with Mr Sands to get the right tempo and pitch)."[29]

“He was feeling his mortality very keenly and wanted these poems to reveal his interior,” remembers Sands. “He relished every moment with words, and wanted me to get it absolutely right. In spite of his illness, he had a burning energy. He was still on fire.”[30]

After Pinter's death Sands read the poems for a group of friends including his fellow actor John Malkovich who felt the tribute could be adapted for a wider audience and set about working with Sands to develop a show which, in 2011, premiered at the Edinburgh Festival. He then took it all over the world. I guess there's a market for "doggerel".[31]

Let me conclude with a poem of my own. Oddly, in recent years—I say 'oddly' because this is not something I did as a young poet—I've written a number of poems in the voices of other poets (Larkin, Bukowski, Cummings, Jenny Joseph). Here is my poem in Pinter's voice:


After Pinter

I am a great man.
People depend on me to say great things.
They expect me to say great things.
I expect I am saying something great right now.
Things appear greater when I say them.

It is a terrible burden, of course,
a terrible responsibility, in fact,
to always have to say something great,
to be great to order; that said
people believe I am being great
even when I am being normal.
To them my normal is just great.
They need me to be great
ergo I am great.

“That was great,” they’ll say
and they’ll believe that to be true
but at the same time they’ll be thinking:
I thought great might be greater than that
but what do I know, he’s the great man, not me.


Wednesday, 27 January 2010


Finally, here are some links to Pinter's poetry online:

REFERENCES


[1] His first publication was a poem 'Dawn' which appeared in the Hackney Downs School Magazine in the spring of 1947.

[2] Michael Billington, The Life and Work of Harold Pinter quoted on HaroldPinter.org

[3] Research by Antonia Fraser revealed the legend to be apocryphal; three of Pinter's grandparents came from Poland and the fourth from Odessa, so the family was Ashkenazic.

[4] Michael Billington, The Life and Work of Harold Pinter quoted on HaroldPinter.org

[5]'Pinter to give up writing plays', BBC News, 28 February 2005

[6] From the preface to W.S. Graham The Nightfisherman: Selected Letters, edited by Michael and Margaret Snow quoted on HaroldPinter.org

[7] Ian Smith ed., Pinter in the theatre, pp.17,18

[8] Don Paterson, 'The Dark Art of Poetry', The TS Eliot Lecture 2004, 9 November 2004

[9] Charlott Higgins, 'Pinter's poetry? Anyone can do it', The Guardian, 30 October 2004

[10] Andrew O'Hehir,The New York Times, 9 May 1999

[11] Michael Billington, The Life and Work of Harold Pinter quoted on HaroldPinter.org

[12] Michael Wood, 'Nice Guy', London Review of Books, 14 November 1996

[13]Ibid

[14] Nige, 'Harold and Eartha', Nigeness, 29 December 2008

[15] PJ Harvey quoted in Dorian Lynskey, 'PJ Harvey: "I feel things deeply. I get angry, I shout at the TV, I feel sick"', The Observer, 24 April 2011

[16] Jean-Marie Gleize, 'Introduction to Pinter's Poetry' in Brigitte Gauthier ed., Viva Pinter: Harold Pinter's Spirit of Resistance, p.133

[17] David Wheatley, 'Dichtung und Wahrheit: Contemporary War and the Non-Combatant Poet' in Tim Kendall ed., The Oxford Handbook of British and Irish War Poetry, p.660

[18] From an audio recording of the poem on YouTube

[19] Harold Pinter, Various Voices: Prose, Poetry Politics, p.58 quoted (in part) in Jean-Marie Gleize, 'Introduction to Pinter's Poetry' in Brigitte Gauthier ed., Viva Pinter: Harold Pinter's Spirit of Resistance, p.133

[20] Dame Antonia Fraser quoted in Penelo Prentice, The Pinter Ethic: The Erotic Aesthetic, p.ciii

[21] Several copies of this can be found online entitled 'Laughter' but it was actually called 'Body' when it first appeared in print in the Saturday Guardian on 25 November 2006. See William Baxter, Harold Pinter, p.137

[22] Noel Malcom, 'Stanzas and sound-bites', The Telegraph, 7 July 2003

[23] Michael Billington, 'Harold Pinter', The Guardian, 25 December 2008

[24] William Baxter, 'Pinter's poetry: a topological corpus' in Brigitte Gauthier ed., Viva Pinter: Harold Pinter's Spirit of Resistance, p.136

[25] Todd Swift quoted in 'Poets at war over Pinter and politics', The Guardian, 2 November 2004

[26] Christopher Hamilton-Emery, 'Pinter's poetry got under the skin', The Guardian, 30 December 2008

[27] Quoted in 'Harold Pinter's stroke of genius in the dullest passages of play', The Telegraph, 16 January 2009

[28]'Harold Pinter and the art of cricket poetry', an extract from The Guardian's weekly e-mail The Spin, 1 November 2011

[29]'The known and the unknown: A celebration of a bullish bard', The Economist, 20 August 2011

[30] Charlotte Stoudt, 'The poetry of Harold Pinter, in a benefit for the homeless', Los Angeles Times, 8 December 2009

[31] Andy Croft, 'Pure doggerel', The New Statesman, 6 December 2004

Silent Noon

$
0
0

151_large

You can’t go back to a place that no longer exists. – Trilby Kent, Silent Noon




When I agreed to review this book I was labouring under the impression that it was a YA novel. The mistake was completely mine because nowhere in the press release does it say that it’s aimed at young adults despite focusing on the lives of three teenagers. Perhaps what got me thinking that way is the way the book was presented:

A new novel from the winner of the Canadian Children's Literature Award for her novel Stones for My Father which also won the Africana Children's Book of the Year award in 2012. Silent Noon has also 14-15 years old protagonists...

On reading this I assumed the book was aimed at fourteen- and fifteen-year-olds but it’s really not although, that said, I guess it depends on your fourteen- or fifteen-year-old. My gut feeling is that the book would be a bit too … ‘subtle’ is the word I kept coming back to as I was reading this book, but I think perhaps ‘understated’ might be a better choice. On the surface we have a set up for an Enid Blyton-style adventure: an island, a creepy old school, a triumvirate of young amateur detectives and more secrets than I would know where to start listing; there’s even some ginger beer. Of course had it been written by Enid Blyton it would probably have been called The Mystery of Lindsey Island rather than Silent Noon which isn’t in my opinion a very memorable title. After the book’s climax there are silences everywhere but you have to cover a lot of ground before you get there. It seems, however, much thought went into the title. Trilby told me:

We struggled with the title for ages. At first it had been The Peppermill, then The Devil's Purse. Silent Noon was deemed more reflective of the tone and content, and I have to say I like the way it inverts what is known as a love poem – there's actually a lot more ambivalence and sadness in the Rossetti text, I think, than we often remember.

The poem she’s referring to is this one:

Silent Noon

Your hands lie open in the long fresh grass, —
The finger-points look through like rosy blooms:
Your eyes smile peace. The pasture gleams and glooms
'Neath billowing skies that scatter and amass.
All round our nest, far as the eye can pass,
Are golden kingcup-fields with silver edge
Where the cow-parsley skirts the hawthorn-hedge.
'Tis visible silence, still as the hour-glass.

Deep in the sun-searched growths the dragon-fly
Hangs like a blue thread loosened from the sky: —
So this wing'd hour is dropt to us from above.
Oh! clasp we to our hearts, for deathless dower,
This close-companioned inarticulate hour
When twofold silence was the song of love.

Dante Gabriel Rossetti

Having read the book I can maybe see why she—and, presumably, her editor—went with this one. I think if I’d been in that room I might’ve argued for The Devil’s Purse though. It depends on what one regards as the novel’s pivotal moment and I really can’t say more without revealing too much. There’s an analysis of the poem here which is quite helpful. The key lines for me are explained here:

In line eight, he says, “’Tis visible silence”. This right here is an oxymoron because silence is not able to be seen. But, this silence is so profound that it is visible. He uses a simile to say that this silence is “still as the hour glass”. This is paradoxical because an hour glass is only still when time runs out. But time never runs out and “Noon” will just continue into another hour.

titanicThat does make sense once you’ve read the book but I’m not sure many will get the Rossetti connection. The novel does lead up to a climax—which I assume takes place at noon (I can’t remember and I haven’t checked)—and after that the book drifts a bit towards its end. That sounds like a criticism but it’s not. The film Titanic doesn’t end when the ship goes down—it could, of course, and there are plenty of films that don’t hang around for any length of time after the climax (we assume everyone gets saved and gets on with their lives)—but the aftermath is also worth exploring at least for a bit and that’s what happens here. Does Barney rise triumphant from the ashes? Is this a character-defining moment or does he get swallowed up by the system? Orwell could feasibly have ended Nineteen Eighty-Four with Winston facing the rat—it would’ve worked—but those extra few pages made all the difference. The comparison between the two books might seem like an odd one at first but it’s less so than you might imagine.

The cover, however, is misleading. The three children in the picture are nothing like the three kids in the book all of whom are frankly troubled teenagers and two of which are overweight. I asked Trilby about this and she responded very much as I expected:

I completely agree with you about the cover. It's a strong image, but to me the kids are far too Call the Midwife, if you know what I mean. But as you rightly say, I had no input and it was presented to me as a done deal – the opinions of the marketing team rule!

The point I want to make is that I started this book with certain expectations and the book didn’t meet them which is not the book’s fault. In fact they worked to its advantage because what I found myself reading was better than I expected. Why that should be the case I’m not sure because I’d read Trilby Kent before—I reviewed her novel Smoke Portrait (now that was a good title) and really enjoyed it—anyway when I was offered two books for July this was the one I picked.

Here’s how the book’s blurb sets you up:

A story of displacement, betrayal – and the lingering past.

September 1953. Fourteen-year-old Barney Holland is promised a fresh start when he is offered a place at a boarding school on the remote North Sea island of Lindsey. Instead, he is shunned by his peers both for his status as a charity pupil and for being the replacement of a recently deceased student, the popular Cray. The arrival of Belinda Flood, a housemaster’s daughter stigmatized by her expulsion from another school, provides Barney with an unexpected ally. Both outsiders soon fall under the influence of charismatic senior pupil Ivor Morrell, who reigns over the forbidden corners of the school.

A gruesome find and the friendship with a local woman rumoured to have been a wartime collaborator draw the three into an increasingly dangerous web of personal and social shame. Gripped by mounting horror at his discovery of secrets harboured by the isolated school community, Barney personifies the struggle of a young peacetime generation finding its way out of the shadow of war.

See what I mean about the three kids on the cover? They just don’t work.

The story covers one term and is told mainly from the perspective of Barney Holland or ‘Camden Town’ as he gets called by some of the other kids although the narrative is written in the third person. He’s the outsider; everybody knows more about the island than he does. The trope is a well-worn one from Tom Brown’s School Days (the genre-founder in many ways although certainly not the first) through to Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone(which breathed new life into the tired old boarding school novel)and although there’s plenty of scope for the novel to fall back on familiar and comfortable clichés (midnight feasts, pranks, bullying—there’s a scene in the book that reminded me of the infamous roasting episode from Tom Brown’s School Days) Trilby doesn’t do too bad a job of presenting a story that’s historically viable—she’s always been big on research—without it becoming caricatured; this is how people spoke and behaved back then so just sit back and enjoy it for what it is.

Lindsey Island, where Carding House School is located, was occupied by the Germans during World War II. One of his dad’s friends tells Barney, when they’d found he’d been offered a last minute place:

We ditched them in the war … Two weeks later, in come the Jerries, and they don’t leave until ’45. Right bastards they were, too.

The Book of Lies, Mary HorlockA while ago I reviewed The Book of Lies by Mary Horlock which was set on Guernsey. During World War II the only British territories to be occupied by the Germans were the Channel Islands and the only permanently inhabited islands are Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark, Herm, Jethou, Brecqhou and Lihou so I’m not sure where Lindsey Island is but I can only assume it’s fictitious. Lindseyis a real place—it’s situated in north Lincolnshire—and its origins date back to Anglo-Saxon days. The name Lindsey means the 'island of Lincoln': it was surrounded by water and very wet land but it’s still very much a part of mainland Britain which, as we love reminding people, was never occupied during the war. St Just, the other island mentioned, also came up a blank; St Just is a town—two towns actually—in Cornwall. There are no islands off the coast of Grimsby that I can see.

The book is not short on characters and I personally struggled to keep them all in my head.

The staff are Mr Runcie, the housemaster; Mr Pleming, the Headmaster (‘Ratty’); Mr Flood (‘Dolly’), whose daughter Belinda is now being taught along with the boys following some trouble at her last school; Doc Dower, the Maths teacher, who, it was rumoured, was a Japanese POW and Mr Swift, the French master, a former pupil of the school who also coaches the cross-country team and is generally known as a slave driver. There’s a school matron who’s only ever referred to as Matron and the groundsman, the taciturn Pole, Krawiec.

The boys are Barney; Robin Littlejohn, who’s in his set and the boy Mr Runcie assigns to show him the ropes (Barney develops what I’m going to call ‘feelings’ for the boy and I’ll leave it at that); Cowper and Shields who always seem be together; Percy (a.k.a. ‘Weeps’) and Hiram Opie, who’s a little bit ‘simple’ but “too old for primary school and too clever to go in a home”. The bed Barney’s assigned to was Henry Cray’s, a former pupil who died, so he’s told, in a plane crash coming back from holidays. This is how Robin describes their classmates:

“Percy and Cowper are middle-class duffers, like me,” Robin said. “Too thick to pass the common entrance, so our people tell their bourgeois friends they prefer to send us somewhere progressive. “He spoke briskly, bored by the fact of knowing everything. “Shields and Opie are military. They get locked up here because their people are always shuttling between Blighty and Malaysia, or Singapore, or Hong Kong – not like in the old days, where you’d actually get to live somewhere hot if your old man was posted there. You’re scholarship, aren’t you?”

In a letter home Barney outlines the school’s pecking order:

Sagartians are Sixth formers. Below that are Medes and then us Lydians. [He’s in Second Year] Sagartians and Medes can wear any jacket or shoes they like. First formers don’t get called anything.

A number of other boys get mentioned in passing and it’s hard to know who to hang onto as important: the only two of note are Hughes, a boy from another dormitory “whose cheeks were blotched with rosacea”—all Robin has to say about him is that he’s “downright revolting”—and Ivor Morrell who’s two years above Barney; his older brother Jonty was something of a war hero and there’s a plaque in the school chapel in his memory. It is whilst out on his first run that Barney encounters Ivor for the first time; he’s learned that there’s a bunker in the woods that some of the runners use to hide in. Ivor is the second member of the group of misfits that Barney becomes a part of. The third is Belinda Flood who, as the only girl in the school, is naturally not fitting in.

There are mysteries and secrets aplenty: what exactly happened to Cray, where’s Robin’s watch, are there still secret tunnels leading to an old German bunker, why did Krawiec come back from the States, where precisely does Belinda Flood go at night, what exactly did she find wrapped in newspaper and preserved from the elements by a piece of oilcloth in the walled garden by the kitchen and what has any of this to do with Miss Duchâtel and her memoir? And that’s only the tip of the iceberg. Hard to tell at first what the real mystery might be.

In many respects, as with any good detective novel, most of the things we don’t know we really don’t need to know and the important things get swept along with everything else. Time is an important theme in this book although you don’t realise that at first. Had we begun with Barney as an old man looking back that might’ve helped but we don’t and so our realisation of what’s really important creeps up on us. The first page that jumped out at me was page 82 in which we hear a bit about Spike, Barney’s stepdad:

Spike had often told him that things happened in their right order. Spike believed in cycles and spirals and figures of eight, the rhythms of the tides and time recorded in sea rings. According to him, there was very little about life that was linear. He hadn’t cried at his own mother’s funeral, he once told Barney, because human emotions don’t work like that: you feel things at all the wrong times and that’s all right. You remember things out of order, too, but that just means you’re finding a way to make sense of it all. So, when in August the letter had arrived confirming that the school would be delighted to welcome Barney into the Second Form—and would his guardian please see to it that the vaccination checklist was completed as soon as possible—his stepfather had tapped the paper with one finger and said, “You see, Barn? To everything there is a season.

Tom Brown's School DaysI said this book is a boarding school novel and, of course, it is at its heart but it’s also not. I mentioned there’s a scene in the book reminiscent of the one in Tom Brown’s School Days and I asked Trilby about this:

The roasting scene was entirely intentional – I was thinking of it not as a cliché so much as a tongue-in-cheek reference to the longer tradition of school stories you mention. In some respects I wanted this to be an anti-school story (Barney's ultimate buying-in to the system being not so much a triumph as a weird defeat), but it seemed to me that this could only work if I acknowledged the conventions of the parent genre.

So that’s another thing about this book. You think you’re reading one thing when you’re actually reading something else entirely. This is a book about systems: social, national and political—is the Nineteen Eighty-Four connection starting to make sense? The school and the island are both microcosms of society. Just as the boarding school is a common trope so is the new transfer student. He provides the perfect proxy for us readers: he knows nothing; we know nothing; we learn together. The school, however, is only one group Barney finds himself having to fit in with and that’s what life’s like. That along the way he should lose some friends and have his ideals sullied is just life. And life sucks.

***

Trilby KentTrilby Kent's first novel for children, Medina Hill, was published by Tundra Books in Canada and the U.S. in October 2009. A second, Stones for My Father, appeared in 2012. Smoke Portrait, her first adult novel, came out in 2011.

As an undergraduate at Oxford University (History BA), she chose Special and Further Subjects in the Indian Nationalist Movement and The Middle East in the Age of Justinian. After graduating in 2004, she moved on to the London School of Economics, where she completed an MSc in Social Anthropology. She’s currently working on her PhD.

She has worked as a rare books specialist at a leading auction house and as a freelance journalist contributing investigative, arts and feature writing to the British and Canadian national press and to literary and news publications in America and Europe. In 2010 she was shortlisted for the Guardian's International Development Journalism Competition. Her short fiction has appeared in African American Review and Mslexia, among others.

The Last Banquet

$
0
0

Last Banquet

We seek the immortality of fame around the same time our bodies begin to seek the sweet peace of oblivion. Such is the contradiction of being human. – Jonathan Grimwood, The Last Banquet




I haven’t read a great many historical novels—really only a handful and they’ve all been reviewed here—and I wouldn’t present myself as a fan of the genre although I have been impressed by the lengths these authors go to in their quest to present the past as faithfully as possible. Indeed it strikes me that, for those people who are aficionados, a significant part of the pleasure they must glean from reading has to be derived from this quest for accuracy in all things. If this describes you then The Last Banquet has much going for it and I certainly learned a thing or two about 18th century France in the lead up to the French Revolution which is where the book ends.

That said, I have to say I groaned when I saw what Canongate had sent me. I’d seen the book in their catalogue and passed on by but as the book was here anyway I dutifully stuck it on my to-read shelf and, when its turn came, removed the dust jacket without bothering to look at it or scan the blurb and started reading. So I came to this book about as ignorant as one could be. By this time I’d even forgotten when and where the book was set. It begins as follows:

1723
Dung-heap Meals

aphodius-fossorMy earliest memory is sitting with my back to a dung heap in the summer crunching happily on a stag beetle and wiping its juice from my chin and licking my lips and wondering how long it would take me to find another.

Beetles taste of what they eat. Everything edible tastes of what it eats or takes from the soil, and the stag beetles that fed on the dung in my father’s courtyard were sweet from the dung, which was sweet from the roadside grass. I had fed the horse the last of the hay and knew it was in a ramshackle stall behind me so the clip clop echoing in the courtyard’s arch had to come from another.

I could stand and bow as I’d been taught. But the sun was hot that summer and my mother and father were still asleep in their room with the shutters closed and I’d been ordered not to disturb them so I stayed where I was.

Luck brought me another stag beetle as the stranger cleared the arch and I popped it into my mouth before he could demand that I share.

What makes a good story? For me it’s only ever one thing: character. It doesn’t matter what the plot is or where it’s set, as long as there are good, believable and likeable-even-if-they’re-horrible characters—I’m thinking along the lines of Cruella de Vil here—then everything else is forgivable, even a tendency to overuse the word ‘and’. By the time I’d read the above—which is about all there is on the first page—I found myself wanting to like this child. I didn’t know its age but it was probably a boy since girls curtsey rather than bow and as much as the thought of eating a dung beetle disgusts me personally there was something equally appealing about this boy. I would’ve been disappointed if he were not likeable.

Literature is peppered with affable brats (most of them Dickensian, at least that’s how it feels) and young Jean-Marie—Jean-Marie Charles d’Aumount, to give him his full name (yes, he’s nobility)—is one of them although (sadly) he doesn’t stay a five-year-old for very long because by the next short chapter he’s turned six; at the start of the third he’s nine but within three pages he’s jumped to eleven. And the years fairly gallop by: 1730 … 1734 … 1736 … and all the way down to 1790. Whereas Dickens would’ve probably have stopped in young adulthood—I’m thinking along the lines of Great Expectations—we get to experience this whole man’s life beginning with the dung heap and ending with the barbarians at the gate.

Jean-Marie is living in interesting times. The thing is he’s not especially interested in the times. There are other things far more interesting that politics. Gastronomy for one. Some fifteen years ago, when Grimwood wrote the first draft of this novel, he’d called it Taste. That changed in time to Master of the Menagerie and finally ended up as The Last Banquet. All are decent titles—and emphasise different aspects of the book—but I can see why he went with the more obvious Taste first of all. The book has been compared to Patrick Süskind’sPerfume (which, in some other universe, is probably called Smell) and the comparison is a reasonable one. Over the years Jean-Marie pops most things in his mouth, from what he can get a hold of locally—mice (taste like chicken), sparrows (taste like chicken), cats (tastes like chicken), dogs (taste like sour mutton)—to the exotic—tigers, alligators, flamingos and cheese made from human breast milk. From an early age he records his attempts to cook these items and in time builds up an impressive (if esoteric) cookbook. But first he has to grow up.

The horse he hears in the opening chapter belongs to le Régent (the duc d’Orléans) and he takes a definite shine to the boy. The boy’s parents aren’t sleeping—they’re dead—and so le Régent takes the young Jean-Marie under his wing and arranges for his care. First he goes to an orphanage until he is of age to attend school and from there he moves on to military academy. Between these two establishments he Ranksmeets a number of boys who will become lifelong friends: first, Emile Duras—“[t]he lack of the particule, the de in his name, set him apart from the others”—then Jerome (Vicomte Jerome de Caussard, second son of the comte de Caussard) and, more importantly, Charlot (Charles, marquis de Saulx; his father is the duke).

Under the care and tutelage of these three, Jean-Marie finds his place in the world. Oddly enough it’s not in the kitchen—nobles don’t work—at least not officially; as he’s a good student his eccentricity is indulged. Charlot becomes the most important of his friends because it’s through him and an invite to the family home, the Chateau de Saulx, that he finds the means to ingratiate himself with the family and ultimately receive the duke’s patronage. It’s all about who you know although he doesn’t go out of his way to curry favour; he just happens to be in the right place at the right time and that place just happens to be standing between the duke’s second daughter, Virginie, and a ravenous wolf. From there on it’s only a matter of exercising a little patience and he’s in a position to ask for Virginie’s hand in marriage. He’s twenty-one by this time (we’re up to 1738) and Dickens—Austen for sure—would probably have wound up everything with a glorious marriage having taken six hundred pages to get there. Grimwood’s got us here in a mere 139 pages and there’re still just over two hundred to go. What to fill them with?

Europa coverThis is where I started to lose interest a little. Things happen, the story keep moving, children grow up, people die, Jean-Marie sets to restoring his family home and all the while in the background trouble is fomenting. And that’s the thing about this book. It’s a bit easy to get caught up in the action and not pay as much attention to the shifting setting, little things like the peasants beginning to meet the nobles’ gaze. Unlike Perfume Jean-Marie’s interest in experiencing every culinary delight he can never develops into quite the same obsession as smell does for Grenouille—it’s not as if he’s about to sell the family home to finance trips to foreign lands to experience exquisite new tastes—but he makes the most of the opportunities that come his way. For example, Versailles.

What do you think of what you hear the word Versailles? Opulence? Extravagance? Shit? I have to say I thought Grimwood was making stuff up when he writes about the Palace of Versailles but apparently not. I had to look it up to check:

Versailles fell into a decline during the last years of the Bourbons. It was inhabited by Louis XVI and his Austrian wife Marie Antoinette before they were sent ‘to the scaffold’. The troubles were a direct consequence of the monarchy’s weakness. It was running out of authority and it had run out of money. One thinks of Versailles as the grandest palace in Europe must also have been it most luxurious. ‘In actuality Versailles was a vast cesspool, reeking of filth and befouled with ordure…The odour clung to clothes, wigs, even undergarments. Worst of all, beggars, servants, and aristocratic visitors alike used the stairs, the corridors, any out-of-the-way place to relieve themselves… “I shall never get over the dirt of this country,” Horace Walpole grumbled, and he had travelled extensively. The approach to Versailles, the English agreed, was magnificent, along wide roads shaded with stately trees. But the squalor inside was unspeakable.’ Versailles in the time of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, Gardenvisit.com

Whilst there with his son, Laurant, Jean-Marie gets to visit the animals and he draws a comparison between the caged animals and Versailles itself:

Hearing the cry of a wild animal and remembering the menageries I realised what it was I saw.

A human zoo built by a king to keep his courtiers captive.

It was not even a prison. Those in prison know that’s where they are. That must be true. Animals born to a zoo know no other life; for them captivity is all the life there is and all there has ever been. Looking down at that edifice I knew I could never live there no matter what honour was offered.

When he learns that an old tigress and her blind cub are to be killed he says he’ll give them both a home. It is there and then that his old friend Jerome comes up with the title Lord Master of the Menagerie, making up the duties as he goes along; the position had not existed prior to this:

Don’t worry, there will be no official duties and you don’t even have to live here if you don’t want, since the king hasn’t demanded it…

Jean-Marie is grateful. He’s become quite the country gent and is keen to get back to his home with his new project. Of course he does intend to eat the tiger once she dies but not until she dies of natural causes even if she might be a bit tough by then.

2nd Europa coverThe young are endearing. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about young humans or young animals. The problem is that they have to grow up. The little boy we encountered in the first chapter is now a grown man and, although he has his quirks, not much of the child remains. Two things, perhaps: his willingness to sample anything new and the fact that, despite his position, he really has no airs and graces. When his first wife dies he even marries a commoner, his son’s nurse, Manon—there’s a name for it too: morganatic marriage—and she becomes vicomtesse rather than a full-blown marquise. The rich and their ruddy titles. It makes no difference to either of them; they’re not that kind of people:

There was a familiarity in the way she talked to me that troubled some of our neighbours. Our conversation lacked the formality found in their marriages, our affections and occasional irritations, best kept behind closed doors, bled into open conversation. So be it. We were shaped by how we’d begun.

I started to think of my life as clay. That day by the dung heap, my life was entirely malleable, soft to the touch and easy to shape. Slowly it dried and grew stiff, until I began to accept the shape it had because change was hard.

The book could easily have wound down at this point but we’re only at 1768 and unless Grimwood intended to bring the French Revolution forward a few years he needed to give something for Jean-Marie to do for a bit apart from improving his estate, building new kitchens and cooking and preserving whole pigs in gigantic glass jars. A diplomatic trip to Corsica proves a distraction as well as a visit from Ben Franklin in 1777 in his role as an agent for the American colonies. Naïvely Jean-Marie thinks his visit has been prompted by interest in his experiments. It falls to Manon to put him straight:

‘My poor boy,’ she says, ‘There is a war on. The American colonies are fighting for their lives. They have more important things to think about than how to grow potatoes or bottle a gazelle…’

The penultimate chapter begins:

1790
Revolution

The rest is history or will be for those who come to write it after us. I doubt they will be kind, and why would they? They will see our sins and forget out graces.

Out in the sticks it takes a little time for the wave of anger to reach him but by the time it does he’s prepared even if he doesn’t deserve what’s coming. For all he became rich and mingled with the even richer Jean-Marie never forgot who he was; he looked after his peasants as best they would let him. When the mob comes for his chateau—in lieu of supposedly unpaid taxes—it is empty apart from an old man and—in tigers’ years—an even older tiger. Time for the last banquet.

This is a biography, albeit a fictional one, and as such it suffers from the same limitations that a lot of biographies of worthy subjects do. Bits of Jean-Marie’s life are interesting—some even exciting—but most of his life is not. He’s had greatness—or at least a title and financial security—thrust upon him, he marries, has kids, loses people—some to death and others to politics—and he grows old and contented. So, no, for the most part this isn’t a riveting book in that regard. But despite its limitations it held my interest. There was a little too much sex for my tastes—seriously this guy wants to taste everything—but although descriptive it never becomes graphic and certainly not pornographic. We never get embroiled in the politics of the court. We’re aware of what’s going on, just as we’re aware of the peasants readying themselves for revolt, but Jean-Marie can afford to be in a wee world of his own and so stays there; the outside is visible through a skin of metaphorical soapy water but it’s distorted. Only at the very end does the bubble burst.

I enjoyed this book more than I expected but not as much as I’d hoped. Foodies will appreciate the recipes even if it’s doubtful they’ll even get a chance to savour any of them although Dragon & Tiger sounds interesting. (That’s cat and snake by the way.)

The book is up at Google Books where you can read a fair chunk of it here.

***

grimwoodJon Courtenay Grimwood was born in Malta and christened in the upturned bell of a ship. He grew up in the Far East, Britain and Scandinavia. Apart from novels he writes for magazines and newspapers. For five years he wrote a monthly review column for TheGuardian. He has also written for The Times, The Telegraph and The Independent. Wikipedia describes him as a “British science fiction and fantasy author.” This is not inaccurate; The Last Banquet is his first literary novel.

Felaheen, the third of his novels featuring Asraf Bey, a half-Berber detective, won the BSFA Award for Best Novel. So did End of the World Blues, about a British sniper on the run from Iraq and running an Irish bar in Tokyo. His novels have been shortlisted for numerous other awards including the Arthur C Clarke Award (twice) and the John W Campbell Memorial Award.

The Fallen Blade, the first of three novels set in an alternate 15th-century Venice was published in 2011 and has gone into ten languages in twelve territories. The Outcast Blade, its sequel, was published in 2012. The final volume of the Assassini novels, The Exiled Blade, was published 30 April 2013.

His work is published in French, German, Spanish, Italian, Polish, Czech, Hungarian, Russian, Turkish, Japanese, Danish, Finnish, Dutch and American, among others.

He is married to the journalist and novelist Sam Baker, who recently resigned as editor-in-chief of Red magazine to work on a start-up. They divide their time between Winchester and Paris...

My Year of Meats

$
0
0

pi5b787a8109f23307@large

So what you’re basically saying is that the residues in meat from hormones, steroids, pesticides, bacterial and viral contaminants, will lead to cancers, infertility, brain fevers, and a host of other illnesses, which we will not be able to cure with antibiotics because our tolerances have been jacked up by the residues also found in meat? So we are doomed to die young and not be able to reproduce ourselves in the bargain? – Ruth Ozeki,My Year of Meats





Ruth Ozeki worked in television and film for some thirteen years; she refers to herself as “a lapsed documentarian”. Her documentary and dramatic films have been shown on PBS, at the Sundance Film Festival, and at colleges and universities across the country. That the ‘lead role’ in her first novel should go to a documentary filmmaker should come as no big surprise. The book started off small:

I’d worked in this small niche of the media industry for eight or nine years, and during that time, it always struck me that the funniest, most interesting, most tragic, and most culturally profound interactions always happened either behind the camera or when the camera was turned off. I hate wasting good narrative and am an archivist at heart, so I decided to record some of the anecdotes.[1]

This wasn’t even going to be a novel at first but as she continued writing she found a voice that she realised “was strong enough, and had enough to say, to sustain a novel.” But what was the book to be about?

The meat was metaphorical, a gag, if you will. As Jane and her crew embarked on a road trip to make a cooking show featuring rural American housewives (I’d done a similar kind of show myself and found it rich in narrative episode), meat took on a variety of metaphorical resonance: I was thinking of women as cows; wives as chattel (a word related to cattle); and the body as meat, fleshy, sexual, the irreducible element of human identity.

As writers we don’t often write the books we set out to write; we write the books that need to be written. As she did more research Ruth realised she was onto something:

You are what you eat, right? I was already several hundred pages into the novel when I realized I needed to take the meat issue more seriously. I started doing research on the industry, and I was pretty appalled at what I found out. I fed this information to Jane, who acted upon it, and this is how the plot of the novel developed.

The book reflects this change in perspective.

Jane Takagi-Little is, as already mentioned, a documentary filmmaker. She gets hired to work on a show for Japanese TV called My American Wife! This is how the show is pitched to her:

My American Wife!

Meat is the Message. Each weekly half-hour episode of My American Wife! must culminate in the celebration of a featured meat, climaxing in its glorious consumption. It’s the meat (not the Mrs.) who’s the star of our show! Of course, the “Wife of the Week” is important too. She must be attractive, appetizing, and all-American. She is the Meat Made Manifest: ample, robust, yet never tough or hard to digest. Through her, Japanese housewives will feel the hearty sense of warmth, of comfort, of hearth and home—the traditional family values symbolized by red meat in rural America.

The show is sponsored by a company called BEEF-EX and their goal is simple: Turn Japanese wives onto American meat especially beef. Their motto? “Pork is Possible, but Beef is Best!” The show is to last a half hour and will be broadcast at eight o’clock on Saturday mornings so not primetime TV—far from it—but the sponsors are very serious about it. Once Jane agrees to take part the details in that initial pitch are made crystal clear:

DESIRABLE THINGS:

  1. Attractiveness, wholesomeness, warm personality
  2. Delicious meat recipe (NOTE: Pork and other meats is second class meats, so please remember this easy motto: “Pork is Possible, but Beef is Best!”)
  3. Attractive, docile husband
  4. Attractive, obedient children
  5. Attractive, wholesome lifestyle
  6. Attractive, clean house
  7. Attractive friends & neighbours
  8. Exciting hobbies

UNDESIRABLE THINGS:

  1. Physical imperfections
  2. Obesity
  3. Squalor
  4. Second class peoples

*** MOST IMPORTANT THING IS VALUES, WHICH MUST BE ALL-AMERICAN.

Documentaries are all about truth, right? Yeah, right. BEEF-EX want their truth presented to the Japanese people: Beef is wholesome. Beef is good for you. Buy beef. But why the hard sell? The Japanese are big fish eaters. Accounting for nearly 23 percent of the average Japanese person’s protein intake, most Japanese consume an average of 128 pounds of seafood every year on a per capita basis—four times the global average according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.

The eating of meat in Japan is a relatively new custom. In the Heian Court, which ruled from the eighth to the twelfth centuries, it was certainly considered uncouth; due to the influences of Buddhism, meat was more than likely thought to be unclean.

The first show does not go too well. Suzi Flowers, the first American Wife, misunderstands the instructions. She was supposed to have prepared the Slow Cooker Coca-Cola BBQ Roast Beefmeats in multiples, in stages, and so the crew has to hang around for hours while she prepares her Coca-Cola Roast:

The meat-cooking section was the most important part of the show, Jane said. It had to be interesting. So to make up for not having enough steps, the director decided to take lots of different shots of the same steps over and over again. But Suzie had bought only enough ingredients to make one rump roast, so they had to go out to the grocery store and buy a dozen economy-size bottles of Pepsi because the store had run out of Coke. Unfortunately they couldn’t find another rump roast that looked the same, and in between each take, Suzie had to wash off the raw meat in the sink and pat it dry with paper towels and make it look new again.

Things go from bad to worse: in the Sociological Survey part of the show (a supposedly humorous Q+A) her husband ends up confessing to an affair with a cocktail waitress and walks out of the show and on his wife. Somehow enough material gets shot and kluged together to make a viable programme even if the Romantic Evening Kiss—which had been filmed much earlier on—looked ludicrous at the end of the show. Perhaps she’d forgiven him and they’d made up—was that the message? Despite the problems encountered during the production the first programme of the show is a ratings success:

[T]he first episodes we’d shot had scored ratings of up to 7.8 percent and penetrated approximately 9,563,310 households. This was very good. With an average of 3.0 persons per household, an estimated 28,689,930 members of the Japanese population watched our show, and the sponsors were pleased. I mean, that’s a lot of sirloin.

Watching this show is Akiko Ueno, wife of Joichi, one of the show’s directors who likes to get called “John” (as in Wayne—think about it). She comes across as your stereotypical, submissive Japanese housewife but her husband is not deserving of the respect she honours him with; he’s a bully on a good day and a wife beater the rest of the time. Her job as his wife, he informs her, is to watch the show when it is aired, buy the necessary ingredients to make that week’s dish, prepare it and serve it to him that evening when he returns from work. She also has to complete a questionnaire ranking the show for things like General Interest, Educational Value, Authenticity, Wholesomeness, Availability of Ingredients, and Deliciousness of Meat:

“You will help me with the campaign … and learn to cook meat too. Fatten you up a little.” Then, all of a sudden, he got very serious. He sat straight up on his knees in front of her, spine stiff, head bowed.

“It was on account of your condition that I was able to have this wonderful idea for the BEEF-EX campaign in the first place,” he said in formal Japanese. “I have received great praise from my superiors at the company, and if everything goes well I shall get a significant advancement too.” He bowed deeply in front of her, touching his head to the tatami floor. “I am most grateful to you.”

Akiko blushed, heart pounding with pleasure, then she realized he was drunk.

Her “condition” is that she’s bulimic. Her husband doesn’t realise—he’s not the most observant of men—but puts down the fact she can’t conceive to whatever this condition is she has; she’s as thin as a rake. The meat, however, does not help; she simply can’t keep it down. I don’t think John Wayne ever played a bad guy although he played a few unpleasant ones but “John” Ueno is most definitely your clichéd, moustache-twirling baddie. At least that’s how many look on him. When asked how she would respond to a reader who said that Joichi Ueno’s character was one-dimensional Ozaki replied:

I’d agree that he is perhaps more simply depicted than Jane and Akiko, but then maintain that he is not a point-of-view character and the book isn’t really about him. One thing that has surprised me is that some readers feel so little empathy for him. Sure, he is the villain of the book, but he is a sad man, too. He is caught between a rock and a hard place, between his American bosses and Japanese corporate culture on one hand, and two highly subversive women on the other. He feels extreme rage and he has a substance-abuse problem; he handles himself very badly. I think his position is interesting, compromised, and one I can relate to.

I’m afraid I had very little … no, that’s not true … I had no sympathy for this guy at all. I felt more for the man who was poisoning his family through using banned chemicals.

So we have a woman in America making documentaries and a woman in Japan being affected by them. A simple and effective premise. Of course as Jane starts to get more involved in the show—taking over full directorial duties—she find it harder and harder to present the kind of sanitised show the sponsors want. And so she pushes. And they push back. Perhaps the low point (for her) is the show with the lesbians—two American Wives for the price of one—and she might’ve got away with that if they hadn’t been vegetarians; BEEF-EX did not like that. Perversely this is the show that affects Akiko the most.

a-tale-for-the-time-beingAs with Ozeki’s most recent book, A Tale for the Time Being, the narrative rocks back and forward between Jane and Akiko, Jane’s story being told in the first person, Akiko’s being told in the third. Both women end up having to take a long, hard look at what they’re doing with their lives: can they, in good conscience, continue with the lives/lies they’ve been living? Will Jane make the documentary-that-really-needs-to-be-made? Will Akiko get her act together and leave her domineering husband? Will “John” get what he deserves? Of course there’s a bit of a hiccup when it looks like Jane’s lost the video with all the incriminating evidence on it and things go very badly for Akiko when her husband discovers the fax hidden in the dictionary—she ends up hospitalised—but these are only temporary setbacks. Two happy-endings-of-sorts are on the cards.

Ozeki said she never set out to write what she calls “a novel of causes” but it’s hard for her, albeit through her characters, not to get a little preachy:

If we can’t act on knowledge, then we can’t survive without ignorance. So we cultivate the ignorance, go to great lengths to celebrate it, even. The faux-dumb aesthetic that dominates TV and Hollywood must be about this. Fed on a media diet of really bad news, we live in a perpetual state of repressed panic. We are paralyzed by bad knowledge, from which the only escape is playing dumb. Ignorance becomes empowering because it enables people to live. Stupidity becomes pro-active, a political statement. Our collective norm.

Having enjoyed reading A Tale for the Time Being I was interested to see what she’d done before. I chose her first novel because it looked like it was going to have a similar premise and it does. In A Tale for the Time Being I was willing to accept the similarities between the two women as more than a coincidence, in fact it’s an important part of the story that the young girl’s diary gets into the right reader’s hands. In My Year of Meats I found the connection between the two women a little more contrived or at least convenient but not impossible. The supporting cast also veered more towards the stereotypical, even the caricatured at times. Had this book been written by a monocultural American I might have shrugged it off as bad writing but since Ozeki is half-Japanese and lived for several years in Japan I’m not so quick to judge. I’m British and so none of the characters in this book felt real to me and there was no one I felt I’d enjoy having a cup of coffee with.

On the whole the book has received a lot of praise and, as far as it’s “cause” goes I can see why. She wraps up her message a little neater than Morgan Spurlock might have (I’m thinking about his documentary Super Size Me) but the message still comes across loud and clear. It won’t stop me eating meat—although I’m not a huge fan of steak—but then I live in the UK and I like to think we hold ourselves to a higher standard (here in Scotland, most beef is grassfed) but maybe I’m deluding myself.

The book has just been released in the UK by Canongate along with Ozeki’s second novel, All Over Creation.

***

imagesMy Year of Meats won the Kiriyama Pacific Rim Award, the Imus/Barnes and Noble American Book Award, and a Special Jury Prize of the World Cookbook Awards in Versaille. All Over Creation was awarded a 2004 American Book Award from the Before Columbus Foundation, as well as the Willa Literary Award for Contemporary Fiction. A Tale for the Time Being won the IBW Book Award 2013.

Ruth Ozeki was born and raised in New Haven, Connecticut, by an American father and a Japanese mother. She studied English and Asian Studies at Smith College and travelled extensively in Asia. She received a Japanese Ministry of Education Fellowship to do graduate work in classical Japanese literature at Nara University.

Ozeki, a frequent speaker on college and university campuses, currently divides her time between New York City and British Columbia, where she lives with her husband, artist, Oliver Kellhammer. She serves on the advisory editorial board of the Asian American Literary Review and on the Creative Advisory Council of Hedgebrook. She practices Zen Buddhism with Zoketsu Norman Fischer, and is the editor of the Everyday Zen website. She was ordained as a Sōtō Zen priest in June, 2010.

NOTES


[1] All quotes from the interview at the back of the Penguin edition

A conversation with Brendan Gisby

$
0
0

brendan-gisby-scottish-author

Geography is people – William McIlvanney, ‘Growing Up in the West’




Recently I was invited to join a growing group of Scottish writers over at McVoices. The man behind the initiative is one Brendan Gisby and I thought it might be a good idea to learn a bit more about him:

JIM: So, tell us a bit about yourself, Brendan.

BRENDAN: Thanks, Jim. There’s not a lot to say, really. I was born in Edinburgh halfway through the 20th century—I like saying that, by the way: it sounds much more interesting than grey, rationed 1950. I was brought up in a large, poor family just along the road in South Queensferry (the Ferry) in the shadow of the world-famous Forth Bridge, and that magical old bridge happens to feature in a lot of my writing. I have three grown-up children from my first marriage. I lived and worked in business in and around Edinburgh up until my retirement a few years ago. I now live in splendid isolation in the wilds of Perthshire with my long-suffering wife and muse, Alison.

JIM: When you retired you decided to devote yourself to writing. This isn’t something new for you is it, a hobby to keep you out of trouble?

BRENDAN: It’s a cliché, I know, Jim, but I’ve always wanted to write. After I retired, I discovered manuscripts and wee stories of mine secreted all over the place; it seems that I had actually been writing any time there was a break from the demands of family and business. Then, once I was totally free, the stories just spilled out of me; it was as if a dam had burst. Writing is not a hobby, therefore, but it does keep me out of trouble. Mind you, just thinking about the alternatives—golf, fishing, sailing, bowling (FFS)—makes me cringe. I’d rather be back working!

JIM: FFS?

BRENDAN: Sorry, Jim, I lurched into socialmediaspeak there. It’s one of the more popular abbreviations they use on Facebook and Twitter. Like OMG, but ruder. It stands for For Fuck’s Sake.

JIM: I did not know that—about the FFS—but, no, I get what you mean. I’m not officially retired but I’m effectively retired. The last two jobs I had burned me out—twice, but the second time was the worst. People talk about burnout the way they talk about the flu. No one has a touch of the flu. I had the flu once and it floored me for a week. And it’s the same with burnout. It took me years to recover from my last breakdown. The amazing thing is that all the time I’d been working myself into the ground—I have no one to blame for what happened to me bar myself—I was writing and by the time I started thinking about self-publishing I’d already got quite a back catalogue which I’m working my way through one book at a time. I should’ve caught up with myself by about 2020 depending on what I get written in between.

Your official website is called Blazes Boylan’s Book Bazaar after the character in James Joyce’sUlysses. Is Joyce a particular hero? If not who is or even if he is who else do you admire and why?

BRENDAN: I had just finished re-reading Ulysses when I set up the website. Like every other author, I was looking for something different, something distinctive for the site’s image. So I chose the name of Blazes Boylan, together with a picture of 1920’s Dublin. Coincidentally, those choices also reflected my roots, my mother having been born and bred in Eire.

I thoroughly enjoyed re-reading Ulysses, by the way, much more so than when I was a young buck. Having entered the brave new world of authorship a bit late in the day, I had been hearing an awful lot about creative writing rules—“adverbs are like weeds” and such tripe—so it was very refreshing to be reminded that Joyce broke every single rule going at the time. I could relate to that, because breaking rules is what I had always done.

Joyce is a particular hero, of course. When I was immersed in business throughout all those years, I found little time for reading. But I did manage to keep up with the output of William McIlvanney. I did, and still do, admire the precision of his writing. And I try to emulate that precision in my own writing. What about you?

JIM: To my shame I actually gave up on Ulysses although I did watch Bloom recently. I struggled with it too. I’m a Beckett man myself but only from when he parted company ideologically with Joyce. As he put it, “[Joyce] was always adding to it; you only have to look at his proofs to see that. I realised that my own way was in impoverishment, in lack of knowledge and in taking away, in subtracting rather than in adding.” McIlvanney, however, I do have a lot of time for, as a man and as a writer. Although you’d be hard pushed to see his influence in my own work he was an early hero of mine.

You write memoirs, novels and short stories. What sort of writer would you say you are? I ask this because so many writers these days feel they need to be a certain type of writer and have one eye always on the demographic. I can’t personally get into that mindset. I’m a writer and that’s the end of it. Writing’s like chocolate or cake. Who doesn’t like chocolate or cake? You might not like cream in your cakes or nuts in your chocolate but everyone likes cake and chocolate. I’ll read a book on anything if I think it’ll be a good read.

4523031_origBRENDAN: My attitude is very much akin to your own, Jim. I’m a writer, period. So far, I’ve had one very enjoyable foray into the realm of fantasy through The Island of Whispersa sort of Scots take on Watership Down. Mostly, though, I tend to be grounded in realism, writing about events I’ve actually experienced with characters based on people I’ve known.

JIM: I actually struggle with realism, not that my books aren’t set in the real world, but I’ve never felt drawn to plunder my own life for stories or even to tell stories. I have a couple of friends who write nothing but autobiographical stuff but that’s not me. In fact in my most recent work I have one of the characters say something along the lines of, “I’ve no time for memoirists, people with their heads stuck up their own pasts.” That said I wouldn’t be the man I am today without the past I’ve had so I’m not saying it was all pointless; I just don’t feel the need to relive it on the printed page.

Talking about printed pages you’re behind a couple of online projects, McStorytellers and McVoices. Tell us a bit about them.

BRENDAN: Well, I’ll begin with McStorytellers. It’s a website dedicated to showcasing the work of Scottish-connected short story writers. It’s now well into its third year. I set it up as a kind of protest against the samey, twee short stories I was fed up reading on other websites—you know the kind I mean: tales of middle-class characters in middle-class settings (usually somewhere in Middle England) with impossibly clever endings. I wanted to create something more edgy and irreverent, something more Scots, as an outlet for my own stories and those of other, like-minded writers.

The site has developed from that cheeky wee cock-a-snook into something of a phenomenon. To date, it has published for free in excess of half a million words in close to 400 stories by some 60 contributing writers, or McStorytellers, including your good self, Jim. And it receives more than 10,000 page views per month. The site is also a publisher in its own right, having published my own work and work by a number of regular McStorytellers. It recently announced its 22nd publication.

McVoices is also a website, but a much newer venture, having only been launched towards the end of May this year. I’m a co-architect of the site along with author and playwright, Cally Phillips. Cally has been very busy with, among many other things, the preparation for the second Edinburgh eBook Festival (see below), so I’ve been left in charge for the moment.

McVoicesAnyway, McVoices does what it says on the tin: it’s an online community of Scottish-connected authors of eBooks who have come together to shout at the market with a bigger collective voice. The community is made up of 18 members at the moment, with more to come. Each member has their own profile page on the site, their own books page and their own blog. And those blogs form the heart of the community. Viewership of the site is already exceeding that of McStorytellers. Another phenomenon in the making, I hope!

JIM: The emphasis here is very much on Scottishness although not all your members live in Scotland. How important do you think a national identity is in writing? Is, for example, Tartan Noir really any different to Scandinavian Noir or Mediterranean Noir?

BRENDAN: All the members of McVoices, like all the contributors to McStorytellers, either were born in Scotland or have a strong connection with the country. Much of their work is what I would call quintessentially Scottish: in other words, the writing is usually powerful, often emotive and invariably shot through with that wry, dry Scots sense of humour. Those three attributes are immensely important, in my opinion. Collectively, they are what separate Tartan Noir from any other kind of Noir.

JIM: I think the humour is especially important. The image of the dour Scot is so far off the mark. I’ve suffered from depression all my life and I said to my doctor once, “D’you know something? My humour actually improves when I’m depressed. Have you ever heard anything like it?” Of course he hadn’t but it’s true. My roots lie in the north of England—my parents hail from Lancashire—and northerners are much the same. I’m a big fan of deadpan humour whether it be Les Dawson or Chic Murray. It took my wife—Carrie’s from California—a long time to get used to our humour—to an outsider we must come across as aggressive and abusive—but she’s been here for sixteen years and now gives as good as she gets.

Talking about nationality, I could have a sex change op but I’d still be stuck with that pesky Y-chromosome. Do you feel nationality’s similar to this? I’m thinking of the large ex-pat communities who are often more passionately nationalistic than those who live in their native country.

BRENDAN: It is among the large majority of ex-pat Scots; that’s my experience, Jim. But that nationalistic passion is also rising rapidly internally. More and more Scots, me included, are now thinking with their hearts. The flame of independence has been lit, and I don’t think it will ever be extinguished until independence is achieved—however long that takes.

JIM: I avoid talking about politics, Brendan. My father said to me years ago, “Y’know, Jimmy, no one votes a government in, only out.” And he’s dead right. But I was reading Orwell a few days ago and in his essay ‘Why I Write’ he said that one of the four great motives for writing was Political purpose. He clarified what he meant by ‘political’ as “Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other peoples’ idea of the kind of society that they should strive after.” That I can relate to. I’m not sure that has to be a Scottish purpose though. I don’t think what Scots are clamouring for when it comes to independence is that different to a hundred different ethnic groups whether they be Basques or East Turkestanis. The thing is though, in this global village that we’re all a part of it seems to me that nationalism’s fighting a losing battle against creeping homogenisation.

BRENDAN: I don’t think that applies in Scotland, Jim. The way I see it, it’s not remotely about Scotsmen wanting to wear kilts and wave the Saltire. It is less a quest for nationalism here and more a desire to be separated from an Old-Etonian-dominated Westminster rule.

JIM: We may well achieve that but I still think that Scotland and England, too, come to that, will all be swallowed up eventually in the “one tongue” the Bible talks about in Genesis. Assuming we don’t blow ourselves up or do something else daft that wipes us off the face of the planet before that happens. Whether that tongue will be international English or Nadsat or Newspeak who knows?

What about dialect though? Although I’m a Scot—I was born in Glasgow and have lived all my life in Scotland—I don’t have even a slight Scottish accent and yet I still find the need to write in dialect on occasion. It can make life hard for our readers—I remember the first time I sat down to read A Clockwork Orange with my finger wedged in the glossary at the back—but I think a lot is lost ‘in translation’ if you like when the rough edges are smoothed out for a global audience.

3841165BRENDAN: I believe firmly that in any story or novel the dialogue of a Scots person speaking in dialect should be represented that way—not just a wee bit, not half-and-half, but exactly, warts and all. And I encourage that approach in the stories submitted to McStorytellers. In my latest novel, The Burrymen War, every single piece of dialogue is written in dialect, swearwords included, because that’s how the characters actually speak and curse. If that puts people off reading the novel, well, too bad.

JIM: We’re both clearly fans of McIlvanney but when I reread Laidlaw a wee while back I felt he pulled his punches when it came to how Glaswegian his characters were unlike Irvine Welsh who tends to go a bit too far the other way; I struggle to read him and I’ve lived all my life here. My main reason for choosing to write in dialect is because of the effect Tom Leonard had on me with ‘The Six O’clock News’; that poem bowled me over the first time I read it and it still impresses. The truth doesn’t have an accent or to put it another way the truth doesn’t care about accents. There’s a nice video of the poem over on the BBC website which I think’s just wonderful considering the subject matter. Do you know the poem?

BRENDAN: I do, Jim, and it really does convey everything I feel about dialect, except much more pithily.

JIM: McStorytellers concentrates on the short story format. I was looking at an article in The Guardian where Rachel Cooke wrote, “In the Fifties, John Updike was able to keep his family by selling just six short stories a year.” Reminded me of the mother in The Railway Children: “Whenever an Editor was sensible there were buns for tea”. Things have certainly declined since then. I know a lot of writers view short stories as a stepping stone to bigger things and mainstream publishers certainly shy away from writers who focus on the shorter forms although the short story is far from dead. Was there a reason you felt it needed a leg up or, like me, do you think the short story might have found its true home here online?

BRENDAN: McStorytellers was born out of my own love for the short story form. I agree that through sites like McStorytellers the web provides a natural home for short stories. However, I think the epublishing revolution has also given short stories a considerable boost, with a growing number of writers, including me, finding it very easy to publish collections of their work. The collections may not sell, but they are there for posterity!

JIM: I’d hate to see Posterity’s to-read shelf. I actually came late to the short story. I wrote nothing bar poetry for the first twenty years, then I wrote two novels back to back, had a break, started a third, got stuck and then very much out of the blue sat down and wrote about forty of the buggers and I’ve only written the occasional bit of flash since. I’m a poet at heart. If I never wrote another sentence in prose it wouldn’t kill me but I’d be lost if I couldn’t still write the odd poem.

Moving on. The Edinburgh Festival—or really these days we should say ‘festivals’—are on their way again and for the second year there’s an eBook festival. How involved are you with the Edinburgh eBook Festival?

callyBRENDAN: The Edinburgh eBook Festival is the brainchild of Cally Phillips, who manages the whole operation virtually single-handedly. It was launched last year to much acclaim. The 2013 event promises to be bigger and even more successful. As in 2012, McStorytellers will be hosting the daily Short Story slot at the Festival. Each morning, it will showcase one of a dozen stories that have been submitted to the site as part of its “Being Scots” competition. Then an anthology of all 12 stories is planned. It will be the third McStorytellers anthology, by the way.

JIM: What about Scottish poetry? Any plans for a McVersifiers?

BRENDAN: Not my scene at all, Jim, I’m afraid. Maybe some other brave soul can take that one on. Maybe they already have!

JIM: I don’t know of any site that focuses solely on Scottish poetry although there are a number of Scottish-based webzines out there. I would rather my poems appeared wherever. I think just as a site like McVoices can attract readers there’s also the danger that it will put people off, people who think we wander round in kilts all day shooting at wild haggises.

I know a lot of writers don’t like talking much about their current projects but what does the immediate future hold for you writing-wise?

BRENDAN: I do have another novel planned, Jim, which I don’t mind talking about. I feel it’s about time I drew on my escapades in business to get a story out there. It will be called The Percentages Men. I hope it will do for the market research business in the UK what Mad Men has done for the advertising industry in the USA. Yeah, well, that’s the dream, anyway. The only thing is I need some space to get on and write the thing—space away from McStorytellers and McVoices and all the other McStuff going on. Maybe I’ll emigrate to England. Aye, right.

***

Brendan is the author of three novels, three biographies and six short story collections. You can see the full list on his Amazon Page here. If you want to sample some of his short stories then click here and scroll down a bit. There’re about thirty to pick from.

The Care Home

$
0
0

The Care Home

HONESTY, SEX, GUILT, DRUGS, LOVE, PAIN. – Lee Carrick, The Care Home




First-time novelists face two problems. The first is what to write about. The second is how to write about it. I’m not sure which is worst. What usually happens is they try to write about their lives but because they’re usually young they’ve not lived and nothing much has happened to them but they milk what they have and present it in the dulcet tones of their favourite writers as best they can manage to imitate them. Most first novels simply need to be got through and stuck in a drawer as a constant reminder of just how inadvisable it is to try to write a book. Everyone has a book in them and that’s exactly where most should stay.

Lee Carrick’sThe Care Home is a first novel, well, first novella—it’s only ninety-two pages long—and it shows. It also shows potential. It’s clearly semi-autobiographical although I suspect the ratio is nowhere near a clean 50:50; there’s a lot here that’s clearly autobiographical. An awful lot. It reads more like a memoir than a novel. But that’s okay, a lot of novels are presented as memoirs although the patina of fiction is often, as I suspect here, palpably thin.

Occasionally, however, a first novel comes along that kicks your feet from right under you: Irvine Welsh’sTrainspotting or Iain Banks’sThe Wasp Factory. And, of course, sometimes a first novel is just the first one the author’s managed to get accepted; Iain Banks wrote his first novel when he was eleven. If the character of Nicky Daniels in The Care Home is really a barely-disguised Lee Carrick (which I believe he is) then he’s been trying to write a book for a while but has been wise enough to stop once he realised he was writing the wrong book. And it takes guts to go back to the bottom of the hill and begin again. So all credit to him for even finishing one even if it is only a novella. Now was it worth the effort?

Lee hails from South Shields which is a coastal town in Tyne and Wear in the north of England, located at the mouth of the River Tyne and about five downstream from Newcastle upon Tyne. It has been for many years a centre of the shipbuilding industry; the Scottish equivalent would be Clydebank which is just down the hill from me. I’ve been to South Shields—my sister married a bloke from there—but to be honest the action in this book could be set anywhere which I consider a plus. This, however, is what Lee says about his hometown on his blog:

South Shields is the social equivalent of a life support machine; it will keep you alive, you can breathe the air, eat the food and drink the water but it will provide few positive emotional experiences. You can breathe in and out, in and out, in and out and your blood will flow but you will never truly know what life can give you.

And my birth town is not unique; this country is littered with similar areas that infuse their residents with nothing; no reason to stay and no reason to leave. They have been forgotten by time, culture and the interesting people. They are a flat-line on a monitor when life should zigzag like a healthy heartbeat; sharp highs and desperate lows, wins and defeats, elation and misery. Then one can thoroughly explore the vast scope of the human condition.

This is the world Nicky Daniels has grown up in. He’s eighteen, none too bright, suffers from depression, has a criminal record, a bit of a drug problem and not much going for him apart from the scabby, uncared for flat he’s somehow ended up with. Oh, and he thinks he might be a writer. We don’t learn much about his family or his past but we can imagine:

A year previously I had been kicked out of my grandparents’ house. My grandmother accused me of stealing a box of Pro-Plus. I denied it. She told me to leave. I left. Since then I had been living in a council flat on a street in South Shields affectionately known as Heroin Row.

I had managed to stay on at college for a year, surviving on state benefits, cash hand-outs and food parcels from friends and family. But after a year it became too much…

For all you might forgive him if he wallowed in what life has doled out to him the one thing he has going for him is that he doesn’t seem to want to. He wants to work. He wants to improve himself. And if the first step on that road to… well, out of South Shields for starters … happens to be the shittiest of jobs in a care home then so be it.

I chose that adjective with care. It’s one of those words that’s moved away from its origins and we probably don’t think about what we’re really saying when we say a TV programme’s shit or we feel like shit because we don’t like to think about shit. It happens behind us—or underneath (you know what I mean)—and it’s not the kind of subject one brings up in polite conversation. Well, those of a delicate sensibility need not apply because in a care home shit is unavoidable. As Nicky is informed:

One hundred per cent of the residents were incontinent to some degree or another and thus they would all wear a sanitary pad that resembled a baby’s nappy. The management were so worried that a family member would hear the pad being referred to as a nappy that you could be sacked for the most innocent of Freudian slips. At no time were the inhabitants of the home to be likened to children. The sanitary pad was held in place with a pair of net underpants that were so sharp they would leave nasty criss-cross marks all over the rubbery backsides and upper legs of the person wearing them.

His first day does not go well but he survives. At home that night he reflects on his “crazy day”:

On my first day I had wiped faeces from an old man’s testes, watched a seventy-two year old woman finger herself, vomited on one of my new colleagues, bed bathed a lady who was so ill she didn’t even know I was there scrubbing her breasts with a moist flannel, and all for £3.60 an hour.

Surprisingly—and this says something about the character of the boy—he turns up the next day (on time even) ready for more.

Ricky Gervais got a bit of stick recently for his comedy Derek, most of it, it has to be said, before the pilot even aired. For those who haven’t seen it it’s set in a care home and Gervais plays the lead, Derek, who seems mentally limited although we’re never told exactly what’s wrong with him; it doesn’t matter. In an interview he said:

derek_front_340In any sitcom, there have to be two ingredients. The first is that the characters have to be trapped, either literally or psychologically. Look at Porridge or Bilko or Steptoe and Son. The other ingredient is that the characters have to be a family, either literally like The Royle Family or Only Fools and Horses, or metaphorically, as in Dad's Army. They have to be fighting outside forces together. In Bilko, for instance, they have the attitude that, "We're all in this together. It's us against the world." While in Only Fools, they are joining forces to fight the economy.

[…]

[In Derek] they're fighting the outside world. They often say, "No one cares". So I have a lot of uncaring intruders coming into the care home. A council man comes in and he clearly doesn't care. And sons and daughters drop off their parents, and immediately start looking at their watches. They are all outsiders who don't care. They are a stark contrast to the people who work in the care home.

Derek is a hero, an innocent. Nicky is not. Well, actually he is a bit. He hasn’t lived. He’s barely had a girlfriend. This is only his second job—he lasted sixteen days with Kentucky Fried Chicken—and he doesn’t seem to have much of a life. He’s not a drug addict, not like Renton in Trainspotting, but he has a bit of a habit—crack cocaine is his drug of choice—although I don’t know how he affords the stuff on £3.60 an hour I have because he also comes across as surprisingly responsible, a man who pays his bills with the one exception—on principle—of his television licence:

They would send me letters twice a month which I would put in the bin without opening; TV’s are more dangerous than guns, but you shouldn’t need a licence.

The Care Home is not a sitcom but is often funny, although you’ll need to have “a certain sense of humour” to appreciate it. I do think most of the rules that Gervais is applying to a good sitcom can apply to a good novel.

Surprisingly Nicky settles into his job. He’s assigned to the elderly mentally infirm ward—or EMI for short:

EMI was the polite, politically correct way of announcing that the residents of this ward are nuts, insane, mental, dementia ridden pensioners, pre-dead humans dressed in pastel cardigans; clothes they would have long ceased to wear if they were compos mentis enough to remember that the evil that is vanity and narcissism could be used for good when deciding to throw away beige, moth bitten attire. These poor souls had forever lost the ability to function normally as productive members of society; in fact, they were now considered a burden.

The residents fall into three types: the bedridden—those incapable of movement, the sitters—who can get around but would be in danger of falling and breaking a hip if they tried, and the walkers:

[T]hese particular residents still have the strength to walk, and walk they do. All day, every day, round and around, constantly searching for a door that will lead them out of the hell that their family has placed them in. Their mumblings were incoherent, but the look on their faces was obvious; they were desperate. Desperate to leave anyway they could. Desperation looks different as we age, for a child it appears and disappears in a moment, but in the elderly it’s tattooed on their faces and screaming to be heard.

The home is required by law to do a background check on all its employees. Remember I mentioned Nicky had a criminal record? In his case it’s assault but this doesn’t stop the home from hiring him. To his mind this says everything about the place.

The book settles down after this into a routine. Nicky talks about his work and he talks about his attempts to write. Eventually he gets a girlfriend—one of the women who works there—and so he talks about his love life and his sex life too. As a writer myself I found the sections when he’s talking about why he feels he needs to write interesting and I suspect these are the most autobiographical bits in the book but that’s fine. Anything to get away from the shit:

I never wanted to be a poet, I never dreamed of having an anthology on the national curriculum, it was just simple to write, somewhere to start and fun.

I wrote then as I do now to reveal myself to the world without having to converse with anyone. I find conversation too combative and useless when trying to reveal the depth of a real emotion. I discovered, through reading, that in the world of fiction nothing was impossible or prohibited, not anymore anyway, and so a writer no longer had to contemplate the what ifs?, the can you imagines? or the wouldn’t it be wonderfuls? There is nothing more liberating than a blank page on the table and a pen in the hand and no preconceived ideas of what one might write. With a stroke of the pen you become the God of the pages.

As a lifelong depressive I also found myself relating to the sections where the Black Dog says his bit:

2428222_f260And now the Black Dog was on my shoulder, whispering in my ear and sinking his rabid teeth into my neck.

– What have you done, Nicky, what have you done? You should have known she was a coke slut, she didn’t insist on protection and she let you cum inside her; you silly little prick. What were you fucking thinking, and now you’ve certainly caught herpes, that shit’s for life man, no getting rid of it, what are you going to tell your girlfriend? And you spent one hundred quid on toot, on toot, Nicky! You’re borrowing money from your family for food and then you go and spend a hundred notes on white powder. It’s your first fucking day at work, man. Sort yourself out.

Nicky doesn’t have an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other. Like Churchill—and Samuel Johnson before him—he has a black dog on his back. (There is an excellent article by Paul Foley on the subject: ‘Black dog’ as a metaphor for depression: a brief history.) Giving the dog a voice and a personality was a touch of genius.

For the most part the patients are nameless and faceless or as good as nameless and faceless. Nicky has no qualms about accepting a blow job in Eddie Davis’s room but then Eddie’s reached the seventh and final stage in his dementia:

Very severe cognitive decline. This is the final stage of the disease when individuals lose the ability to respond to their environment, the ability to speak and, ultimately, the ability to control movement. Frequently individuals lose their capacity for recognizable speech, although words or phrases may occasionally be uttered. Individuals need help with eating and toileting and there is general incontinence of urine. Individuals lose the ability to walk without assistance, then the ability to sit without support, the ability to smile, and the ability to hold their head up. Reflexes become abnormal and muscles grow rigid. Swallowing is impaired.

Eddie wouldn’t have had a clue what was happening. This sounds very callous but I used to have a sister-in-law who had been a geriatric nurse for many years and a more emotionally-detached woman I have yet to meet; her ability to compartmentalise and switch off was absolutely frightening and she told me straight that it would have been impossible (for her at least) to survive doing the job she did without being able to switch off. It’s sad how quickly Nicky manages this. But everything changes—later that day in fact—with the arrival of Janey Taylor who’s being wheeled in just as Nicky is about to leave for the night:

I got my coat and waited for Louise in the corridor, we had decided to go for a few drinks after work. Karen appeared from around the corner pushing the new inmate in a wheelchair. As she approached me she began to shout and scream.

– John, John, John. Howay man, John.

They went past me and Janey Taylor looked at me directly in the eyes. She was still screaming when I walked through the locked double doors with Louise and off the ward.

Janey thinks that Nicky is her husband.

Janey’s husband had died five years previously, his name was John Taylor and he was a welder from Newcastle. She had three children, two girls and one boy, all of whom were alive. Her son, Ronald, had emigrated to New Zealand in the 1980’s. Her two daughters, Sylvia and Elizabeth, still lived in the North East. There were no records of them ever having visited her.

When Nicky is around Janey is manageable—when she’s not trying to kiss him—and so she becomes his special case and gradually we start to see a change in Nicky. He was never a bad lad but he had a lot of growing up to do. Now he starts to see his patients as people and not simply lumps of flesh to be cleaned, fed, rotated or medicated. For me, though, the most moving story is of the first death Nicky has to cope with. Over three pages we watch Jimmy Pepper die and it’s terribly moving:

I fetched some clean sheets from the linen room and met Sheila there. Jimmy looked terrible, his eyes were sunk into his head and he was struggling to breath.

We had to take his vest, underpants and sanitary pad off first and replace them all. I had to lift Jimmy’s bony, dying body off the mattress and hold him in position while Sheila fought with his vest to get it off. I then took down his underpants, removed his pad and replaced them both. All the while, Jimmy was dying.

We then removed his blankets, leaving him uncovered. I pulled his lifeless body over to me while Sheila pulled his bed sheet from under him before replacing it. Jimmy continued to die.

I then covered him with some new blankets. Sheila instructed me to clean his room, including vacuuming the carpet. I got the vacuum from the utility closet, took it back to his room and turned it on. The vacuum was loud and annoying, as all vacuums are. Jimmy lay there dying.

Sheila returned and told me that she had called the family and told them to come right away. I was told to wait with Jimmy until they arrived and ensure he was clean and presentable. She went back to her office; she probably had paperwork to do.

So I pulled up a chair beside his bed and sat with him, watching the life drain away from his eyes was very sad.

Jimmy was a “miserable old bastard” but he ends up dying alone apart from Nicky. Later on we learn why his two sons had failed to appear. And it’s probably the most upsetting thing in the book.

schcWhen I first started reading this book I expected to find examples of horrendous abuse—there’s been a bit on the news recently about Southern Cross Healthcare (Sean Abbott from South Shields, admitted four charges of assault on the patients in their eighties)—but there wasn’t any. Really what this is is a coming of age novel, a fairly classic Bildungsroman:

A Bildungsroman tells about the growing up or coming of age of a sensitive person who is looking for answers and experience. The genre evolved from folklore tales of a dunce or youngest son going out in the world to seek his fortune. Usually in the beginning of the story there is an emotional loss which makes the protagonist leave on his journey. In a Bildungsroman, the goal is maturity, and the protagonist achieves it gradually and with difficulty. The genre often features a main conflict between the main character and society. Typically, the values of society are gradually accepted by the protagonist and he is ultimately accepted into society—the protagonist's mistakes and disappointments are over. In some works, the protagonist is able to reach out and help others after having achieved maturity. – Wikipedia

That paragraph is a decent enough summary of this novella but part of the problem here is that Lee chose to write a novella rather than a novel. 25,000 words is all find and good—and I’m a huge fan of the novella when it’s done right—but you have to be choosy about what you write about and some of this felt rushed. At the end of the book after surviving an overdose—which happens somewhere between chapters nineteen and twenty (a wasted opportunity)—something happens that will change his life forever:

I received an email from a magazine that I had never heard of. They got my details from a literary website, of which I was an inactive member. The email gave details of a writing competition based in London. The challenge was to write a novel or a novella over a weekend in their offices in Camden. The plan was to write from eight in the morning until eleven at night; fifteen hours per day for two days. The prize for best novel was a published ebook through a reputable company that I had heard of.

imagesWe’re then told that what we’ve been reading has been the results of those two days. We don’t find out if he won. If he had I wouldn’t have believed it because this is not a prize-winning novella. But it does excuse some of its weaknesses, its lack of refinement. Perversely the book also lacks the rough-and-readiness that made Trainspotting such a startling debut. Trainspotting was about drugs, end of story. One of Nicky’s early efforts is a book called Sniff:

It made sense to me that if I couldn’t take cocaine I might as well write about it; I hoped to trick my mind into thinking we were still doing coke by explaining what it was like in the form of a novel entitled Sniff.

I had been reading a lot of Irvine Welsh books at the time and I decided to try and write in a style that was similar to his; it was the style that I liked to read, so I decided that it should be the style that I write in.

[…]

I wanted to write Trainspotting for the cocaine generation. I wanted a low budget movie to be become an international success, but most of all I wanted the recognition.

I rewrote the first 30,000 words of Sniff, ironing out the flaws and adding to the plot; when I’d finished, I realised something. I hated it. I stopped writing it and never added to it again.

What I had realised was that I couldn’t write like Welsh, not because I was a bad writer, but because I wasn’t Irvine Welsh. I knew that I had to find my own style, my own content and be satisfied with what I could produce.

It’s a good thing he did. One Irvine Welsh is quite enough. In subsequent goes he also resists trying to imitate Bukowski and Burroughs although maybe the ghost of Hemingway is still hanging around here. I don’t think Lee has found his voice yet. This is a bit too polite in places. Yes, Nicky swears but he also uses words like “converse” and each of the three times the word crops up it rankled me. Geordies are like Glaswegians: if we use a word like “converse” we’re taking the piss.

As a story this works fine. As a novel maybe not so much and I suspect the problem there is that it’s sticking too close to the truth—novels are fictions; fictions are lies so if you’re going to lie make it a good one—but it has something. Most of it is perfectly readable—a good, solid three-star read (if I gave stars which I don’t)—but every now and then there’s a glimmer of a fourth star and even a suggestion of a fifth. I wouldn’t have spent the last three days working on this article if I didn’t think there was something here worth encouraging.

You can buy the ebook for a mere 77p—I bought my own copy, no one asked me to review this—or if you prefer a paperback it’s available as one of them too. The book was published by McStorytellers and McStoryteller-in-residence Brendan Gisby’s like me; he wants his authors to be read which is why he keeps the price down.


Lolito

$
0
0

brooks-lolito-lst116476-t

I think that honesty is like a piñata with nothing inside. – Ben Brooks, Lolito




Let’s cut to the chase. No one these days picks up a copy of Vladimir Nabokov’s 1955 modernist novel Lolita ignorant of the fact they’re going to be reading about the seduction of a twelve-year-old girl by a middle-aged man. Since I’m going to be talking about Lolita quite a bit let’s level the playing field: Lolito is a very British 2013 novel by Ben Brooks in which a fifteen-year-old boy encounters a mature woman on the Internet and ends up agreeing to meet her in the real world for the purpose of having sex. Yes, that’s a spoiler but some things are best spoiled.

What makes something wrong? If you’re a Christian then usually the answer to that question is: If God says it’s wrong then it’s wrong. Lying’s wrong. Stealing’s wrong. Adultery’s wrong. But what if you’re not a practicing Christian? Who says what’s right and wrong? Well tend to we defer to the government. Parking on double yellow lines is wrong. Peeing in public is wrong. Having sex with someone under ‘the age of consent’ is wrong. But what makes these things wrong? Even in Bible times things weren’t as simple as I implied: just ask the Canaanites, the Amalekites the Gibeonites and a load of others races no one hears about any more since the Israelites massacred them. Thou shalt not kill except when God says it’s okay.

There was, of course, no ‘age of consent’ back then. The Bible defined marriage as something that you needed a man and woman for, not a male and a female, and so as it was generally accepted that a girl became a woman when she had her first period so that meant, in theory and in practice, it was okay to marry most girls as soon as they hit puberty and the only consent that was needed was that of the girl’s father. Humbert Humbert would see that as perfectly reasonable:

The median age of pubescence for girls has been found to be thirteen years and nine months in New York and Chicago. The age varies for individuals from ten, or earlier, to seventeen. – Lolita

Kids are nowhere near as ignorant as they used to be. And by that I mean they’re nowhere near as innocent as they used to be. In times past (and not that far in the past) it wasn’t that unusual for a woman to climb into her betrothal bed and know nothing about sex or even where babies came from. If sex was innately horrible no one would want to do it. There’d be laws against it. As it happens sex is usually satisfying, but can run the gamut from terrifying to earth-shatteringly wonderful. Sex in the right circumstances is not wrong. Sex is natural. Kids discover that quite early on and then learn—added bonus—it’s apparently better when there’s two involved. Who’d of thought that? Nowadays kids have sex much, much earlier than they did even in my day—I never even kissed a girl until I was sixteen—and it’s no biggie. Maybe it should be a biggie but for most kids it’s not. They don’t see it as something wrong usually they’re told it’s wrong and then, because someone’s told them it’s wrong (with that perversity that belongs to most teenagers) they want to do it all the more. Making something ‘wrong’ isn’t always a good idea. Look at Eve and the fruit tree.

The protagonist in Ben Brooks’s new novel Lolito is fifteen. He’s called Etgar. And to say that he’s sexually aware is something of an understatement. An innocent he is not. It wasn’t ripped from him. He, like most kids, handed it away without a second thought. It’s okay to have sex with someone under the age of consent if you’re also under the age of consent, especially if you’ve both consented. It’s may not be legal but there’s definitely a bit of a double standard thing going on here. We know we can’t stop them and so we turn a blind eye. They might get shouted at but no one’s calling the cops unless one of the parties is very young. Kids know that smoking and drinking are illegal and yet they go out of their way to experience them. Why not sex? What’s the difference?

Talking about differences what’s the difference between ignorance and innocence? In her dated (but still thought-provoking) essay on the subject Amélie Rives begins as follows:

It seems hardly possible to open this subject, without at first becoming involved in a statement of axioms; for, on reflecting that Ignorance means a want of knowledge, and Innocence, freedom from guilt, purity, this thought at once presents itself —that, while a person, wanting in knowledge, may often be innocent, the very lack of knowledge may as often lead him into guilt.

And, conversely, that while another, thoroughly instructed in what guilt means, may of his free will indulge in, or refrain from, wrong-doing, the fact of such knowledge on his part, in no way affects the innocence of his nature, or actions, when according to his ideas of right and wrong he has done what he considers to be right.[1] (bold mine)

She ends with:

To those who consider that a lack of knowledge constitutes innocence, and therefore imply that an embroidered flower is more truly innocent than any thinking child can ever be, no matter what the amount of restraint exercised over its reason and curiosity, these views can hardly seem judicious, but at least I venture to hope that there are many who will agree with me in my belief that Innocence is only in the highest sense worthy and useful when it is the result of choice, not of accident.[2] (bold mine)

Does Etgar know that drinking alcohol is illegal? This is how the book opens:

We’re fifteen and drinking warm cider under the cathedral grounds’ pine trees. It’s seven-thirty.

He’s with his friends, Sam and Aslam and Alice:

Alice is my girlfriend. She has a sharp nose, size four feet and Raynaud’s Syndrome. In the morning her mouth tastes of stale milk. I imagine her recent search history: how to make an Ouija board, does anal hurt, Haruki Murakami.

She tells him she and her family are going away on holiday over the Easter break. To Antigua. Aslam doesn’t know what Antigua is but Etgar knows what he’s going to do while she’s away:

I want to remain in bed, watching documentaries about exotic marine life and sporadically masturbating over shopping channel presenters. I want to call Alice three times a day for reassurance that she’s not putting her mouth against the mouths of people who aren’t me.

It’s a plan. His parents will be away too. They’re going to Russia. Why Russia? I’m assuming a nod to Nabokov (pronounced Na-BOW- (as in bow and arrow) cough) who was Russian. That said Etgar’s not an especially Russian name; it is popular with Israelis apparently.

The plan starts of as, well, as planned. He talks to Alice and then looks up things in the Internet (the spelling and punctuation are not perfect):

        Elliot Trump has uploaded new pictures.
Katya De Vangelo has got John Gordon-Levitt, popcorn and rosé ready for a night in with the girlies.
        Carly Yates thinks that some people can just fuck off.
        Horney milf wants you’re cum
        Sentence: ass raping til death
        Dirty brit amateur swingers fuck in woods
        A man and a woman are sitting side by side on thrones. They are wearing crowns and medieval clothing. The woman says she wants King Dick to come back because her vagina is lonely. The man next to her says he is Prince Dick and he gently presses her thigh as she bites into a turkey leg. She shouts for the archery competition to begin. Amundsen [Etgar’s dog, named after the Norwegian explorer] wanders back into my room, sniffs at nothing and lies down on the rug. Three men in medieval clothing pull out their dicks and start fiercely masturbating while aiming at a target ten feet away. I feel confused. I don’t understand.
        Carrie Machell is in a relationship.
        I have won a free Macbook.
        I take the sock off my dick and throw it at Amundsen.

Why’s he confused? What doesn’t he understand? When I talked to my contact at Canongate about how I was thinking about approaching the review—not that I was asking permission, I was just mentioning—she said, that Etgar “has a very young naïve streak, which I think is indicative of the fact that you can’t put a number on maturity, and there are different levels of it.” Okay so we have innocence, ignorance and now immaturity to factor in. Maturity comes in different flavours—emotional, physical, mental—and it’s pretty obvious that despite the fact his body is ready for sex and his mind is reasonably well-informed about what can count as sex he’s still lacking when it comes to an emotional appreciation of what sex can be about. It can be about orgasms. Mostly at that age that’s all it’s about. It’s about clearing your mind for an hour or two so you can think about other things. It’s something to do to break the boredom of everyday life that doesn’t cost money.

The GraduateLolita is a funny book. Lolito is a funny book. The Graduate is a funny film. Just because all of them deal with the “seduction of the innocent” (to quote Fredric Wertham out of context) is by the by. All three are funny and all three are tragic. You might say paedophilia (or, perhaps more correctly, hebephilia in the case of Lolita and ephebophilia in the case of Lolito) is no laughing matter but there’s a funny side to most things if you look hard enough. Humour is often cruel and if you have a victim deserving of a measure of cruelty then it’s all the easier to make fun of him. How many jokes have been told involving Adolf Hitler and he’s a far more deserving case than anyone else mentioned in this article. What we also have to remember is that Humbert Humbert, Macy (the woman Etgar ends up with) and Mrs Robinson are works of fiction: no children were harmed in the writing of these novels.

As Benjamin Braddock in The Graduate is almost twenty-one, although questionably, the only thing criminal about Mrs Robinson’s actions is the adultery (and it’s been a long time since anyone was shocked over an act of infidelity) because the age of consent was eighteen by then and had been since the 1920s (prior to that, and in a lot of American states it was 10, can you believe?) but he was still a bit naïve. I mention The Graduate because of a comment made by Matt Haig about Lolito:

Lolito is really something else. A twisted age-gap love story that is deadpan and grubby and strangely poetic and funny and wrong and also very right. It us like how The Graduate would have ended up if Dustin Hoffman had watched a lot of Loose Women and drank Strongbow and spent too much time on the internet.

There was no Internet when Charles Webb wrote his 1963 novel The Graduate and such a thing was no less unimaginable in Nabokov’s day but then what about this scene? A reflection in a rectangular frame. What does this quote from Lolita remind you of?

It happened for instance that from my balcony I would notice a lighted window across the street and what looked like a nymphet in the act of undressing before a co-operative mirror. Thus isolated, thus removed, the vision acquired an especially keen charm that made me race with all speed toward my lone gratification.

Is there any difference really between Humbert’s act of voyeurism and Etgar looking at porn on the Internet? One might even argue that Etgar’s is the lesser offence because the likelihood is that those he’s watching know it’s happening and are willing participants. I think Nabokov would’ve liked the Internet—Humbert certainly would but we need to be careful not to confuse the two—because he was fond of the concept of the avatar. Often he makes cameos in his books carefully hiding behind what we would think of today as a user name: case in point, in Lolita the character of Vivian Darkbloom is actually an anagram for “Vladimir Nabokov.” Vivian is Clare Quilty's writing partner; Clare is male, Vivian is a female. Lolita tries to confuse Humbert by telling him that Vivian is a man and that Clare Quilty is a woman. And people pretending to be something they’re not happens all the time on the Internet which is why Macy, who had originally introduced herself to Etgar as ‘Hattie’, ends up sending him a short video clip to prove she’s not a man.

What drives Etgar online in the first place? A falling out with his girlfriend Alice. He’s looking (in part) to recapture what he’s lost, what he feels has been taken from him. Not sure if that’s love but I suppose when I was fifteen sex equalled love. Why would someone let me—not that anyone did—make out with them if they didn’t love me? Humbert is also looking to recapture something lost: his feelings for a girl named Annabel Leigh:

When I was a child and she was a child, my little Annabel was no nymphet to me; I was her equal, a faunlet in my own right, on that same enchanted island of time; but today, in September 1952, after twenty-nine years have elapsed, I think I can distinguish in her the initial fateful elf in my life. We loved each other with a premature love, marked by a fierceness that so often destroys adult lives. I was a strong lad and survived; but the poison was in the wound, and the wound remained ever open, and soon I found myself maturing amid a civilization which allows a man of twenty-five to court a girl of sixteen but not a girl of twelve.

One thing Nabokov was keen to point out was that anyone who purchased a copy of Lolita hoping to be titillated would be disappointed. From the book’s foreword:

Viewed simply as a novel, Lolita deals with situations and emotions that would remain exasperatingly vague to the reader, had their expression been etiolated by means of platitudinous evasions. True: not a single obscene term is to be found in the whole work. Indeed, the robust Philistine who is conditioned by modern conventions into accepting without qualms a lavish array of four-letter words in a banal novel will be quite shocked by their absence here.

The same cannot be said for Lolito. Expletives abound and the sex is described graphically. Some might say ‘pornographically’ (“the copulation of clichés”[3] to quote Nabokov on the subject) but I’ll stick with ‘graphically’. Here, for example, are a few lines from Lolita:

Age of Innocence[The classroom] was smelly, with a sepia print of Reynolds’“Age of Innocence” above the chalkboard, and several rows of clumsy-looking pupil desks. At one of these, my Lolita was reading … and there was another girl with a very naked, porcelain-white neck and wonderful platinum hair, who sat in front reading too, absolutely lost to the world and interminably winding a soft curl around one finger, and I sat beside Dolly [Lolita] just behind that neck and that hair, and unbuttoned my overcoat and for sixty-five cents plus the permission to participate in the school play, had Dolly put her inky, chalky, red-knuckled hand under the desk. Oh, stupid and reckless of me, no doubt, but after the torture I had been subjected to, I simply had to take advantage of a combination that I knew would never occur again.

Now a few lines from Lolito and, I should make this clear, this takes place before Etgar gets involved with the older woman online:

        ‘I don’t know,’ she said. ‘Is there anything you want to try that we haven’t?’
         ‘Like what?’ I pictured Alice choking me, hitting me and flailing me. I pictured Mum visiting me in hospital, tutting and saying ‘kids these days’ to a patronising nurse who quickly leaves the room to dial Social Services. ‘No hitting.’
         ‘I didn’t mean hitting.’
         ‘What then?’
         ‘I watched a golden shower thing the other day. The guy had like goggles on and she did it on his face.’
        I laughed. ‘I don’t know. Is that funny or disgusting?’
         ‘Sexy.’
         ‘No. I don’t know. There were like things I didn’t like before you. So maybe.’
        She lifted her head off my lap.
         ‘Like what?’
         ‘Like tits. Also eating out.’
         ‘Don’t call it that.’
         ‘What do I call it?’
         ‘I don’t know.’
         ‘Eating clams.’
         ‘No eating.’
         ‘Prawn cocktail.’
         ‘I’m breaking up with you,’ she said. ‘Unless we try it.’

         […]

        She pulled down her pants, threw them onto the toilet seat and lifted one leg up and over me. ‘Where should I make it go?’

Watersports are classified as a paraphilia. That Etgar would agree to participate in this (which some might regard as an act of humiliation) does say something about his character; he’s pliable. The woman online doesn’t have to groom him over months—as happens in the case of Lolita—and within a couple of days he’s agreed to meet her in the real world after already having had cybersex with her a couple of times. The events in Lolita drag on over a couple of years. The main events in Lolito take place over a single weekend. But I guess that’s life in the modern world.

There are problems with both books. In Lolita we don’t get to see the girl except through Humbert’s eyes, although there are times when what he says is quite revealing:

I recall certain moments, let us call them icebergs in paradise, when after having had my fill of her—after fabulous, insane exertions that left me limp and azure-barred—I would gather her in my arms with, at last, a mute moan of human tenderness (her skin glistening in the neon light coming from the paved court through the slits in the blind, her soot-black lashes matted, her grave grey eyes more vacant than ever—for all the world a little patient still in the confusion of a drug after a major operation)—and the tenderness would deepen to shame and despair, and I would lull and rock my lone light Lolita in my marble arms, and moan in her warm hair, and caress her at random and mutely ask her blessing, and at the peak of this human agonized selfless tenderness (with my soul actually hanging around her naked body and ready to repent), all at once, ironically, horribly, lust would swell again—and "oh, no," Lolita would say with a sigh to heaven, and the next moment the tenderness and the azure—all would be shattered.

What was she really thinking? She’s compliant and it’s really only Humbert’s possessiveness that ultimately drives her away. Is there a point when she becomes guilty too?

In our hallway, ablaze with welcoming lights, my Lolita peeled off her sweater, shook her gemmed hair, stretched towards me two bare arms, raised one knee. “Carry me upstairs, please. I feel sort of romantic tonight.”

Once Lolita has lost her innocence we see a change in her and she does become more controlling; she’s well aware of the power she has over Humbert and isn’t beyond manipulating him.

Ben Brooks only lets us see things through the eyes of the boy so we learn little about his (legally at least) abuser but, here too, there are a few insights:

        Macy’s upper arms and chest are dotted with purple bruises the size of ramekins. She looks at me looking at them. She doesn’t say anything. I press a thumb against a dark spot on her ribs and gently trace the outline of it, wondering if it’s possible to feel physical pain in that many places at once.
         ‘Did you get mugged too?’ I say.
         ‘Kind of,’ she says.
         ‘Did you get mugged by your husband?’
         ‘Let’s get breakfast. You’ll be ill if you don’t put something in your stomach.’
         ‘You don’t want to talk about your husband.’
         ‘No, I don’t.’ She winces and moves back to the bed, pulling on her hoodie and putting up the hood. She sits down. ‘I’m sorry,’ she says, putting her arms out in a come and touch me way. ‘I don’t want to talk about him. He’s not here.’
         ‘I know,’ I say. I climb into her lap and put my head against her tits. ‘I’m sorry too. I want to be your husband. I want us to live in a tree house.’

What’s going on in the woman’s head? Is her husband a wife beater? Would it be okay if he were? Would that excuse her in some way? Humbert’s account is a defence—“you took advantage of my disadvantage”—but Etgar merely recounts what goes on and how he feels about it:

The word debauchery hangs in my head. I wonder if I’m debauched of if Macy is. I definitely don’t feel debauched. I feel lost and quietly panicked.

coverOn vestige.org someone called Nikki wrote, “I'm on the last 20 pages of Lolita, and once again finding myself in utter amazement and full of love for Nabokov's words. This is the greatest love story ever written.” She’s not the first to use those exact words. Lionel Trilling also called it “the greatest love story of our time”; the quote is used on the covers of some editions. In the preface to The Annotated LolitaAlfred Appel, Jr. says, “Lolita is surely the most allusive and linguistically playful novel in English since Ulysses (1922) and Finnegans Wake (1939)” and he’s right. To illustrate, Nabokov laboured for a month on a single fairly inconsequential sentence (which he himself reckoned would “be skimmed over or not noticed”[4]):

In Kasbeam a very old barber gave me a very mediocre haircut: he babbled of a baseball-playing son of his, and, at every explodent, spat into my neck, and every now and then wiped his glasses on my sheet-wrap, or interrupted his tremulous scissor work to produce faded newspaper clippings, and so inattentive was I that it came as a shock to realize as he pointed to an easeled photograph among the ancient grey lotions, that the moustached young ball player had been dead for the last thirty years.

In that respect it is a beautiful novel and it’s easy to fall in love with the prose and lose perspective: shit no matter how eloquently described is still shit. Brooks, on the other hand, although his wordplay is often clever, is no match for Nabokov. Few are. I’m not. But Brooks cons us in his own way. His book is cheeky and irreverent and doesn’t seem to take anything seriously for long. So Amundsen craps on the living room floor. So what?

I can’t say I was shocked when I learned that Etgar was fifteen. But what if Etgar had been Etrina? We definitely view the sexes differently. It’s the old story: a young man is out sowing wild oats; the female equivalent is a slut. Should I have been shocked? It is a criminal offense after all. Maybe I should’ve been but I wasn’t. Partly because I know it’s all made up but mostly because if I’d been fifteen and had the chance to have sex with an older woman I can’t pretend I wouldn’t have been tempted. I wouldn’t have seen it as a crime. It would have been an opportunity.

But is Lolito a love story? Etgar’s a poet—as was Humbert actually—and here’s one of his poems:

Macy Poem #1
In the event of a zombie apocalypse
in which you were a zombie
my plan would be
to eat three bars of Galaxy
drink six cups of tea
and lie somewhere
clearly visible
but vaguely comfortable
and not try to decapitate you
or stop you from infecting me
with zombie virus.

Okay it’s not a very good poem but what I noticed once I made this connection is the other correlations I could find between Lolita and Lolito, but in most cases the link is between Etgar and Humbert. Humbert is a kid on the inside. He’s living in a fairy tale of his own construction and so is Etgar. All that stuff about going to live in a tree house for example: pure fantasy.

There’s also an odd scene in Lolito—I thought it odd anyway—when Macy takes Etgar to, of all things, a gay bar and then vanishes for a while leaving this young man to fend off advances on his own. Nabokov was a homophobe whose own gay brother apparently scared the living daylights out of him. It’s not exactly a major theme in Lolita but it is important to Humbert—who thinks he looks like a film star anyway (although I don’t think he had James Mason in mind)—that he’s not gay:

The boyish qualities of a nymphet tempt the reader into interpreting Humbert’s quest as essentially homosexual, but we may be less absolute in our judgment and practice of pop psychoanalysis when Humbert tells how during one of his incarcerations he trifled with psychiatrists, “teasing them with fake ‘primal scenes.’ ” “By bribing a nurse I won access to some files and discovered, with glee, cards calling me ‘potentially homosexual’ .”[5]

Humbert, by my reading, is pleased that he’s put one over on the doctors, that he’s hidden his true self.

I’m not saying that Etgar feels a strong need to prove his heterosexuality but I would be curious to learn what was going through Brooks’ head when he inserted this chapter into the proceedings since all it does is (unnecessarily) delay the two of them having sex.

Gay, of course, has changed in meaning over the years and now rather than ‘bright’ or ‘homosexual’ ‘gay’, at least among kids Etgar’s age, means ‘lame’ and a couple of times in the book it’s thrown out as an insult. Perhaps I’m reaching.

Humbert also becomes rougher and rougher with Lolita as the book progresses—partly due to the drink (Etgar also drinks to excess)—and he does hurt her:

She would mail her vulnerability in trite brashness and boredom, whereas I, using for my desperately detached comments an artificial tone of voice that set my own last teeth on edge, provoked my audience to such outbursts of rudeness as made any further conversation impossible, oh my poor, bruised child.

Etgar doesn’t hit Macy but someone has—remember the bruises in the quote above—and so it’s hard not to think of her as a grownup Lolita. Lolita, of course, dies in the book—at eighteen during childbirth—but what if she had lived? It’s the old story of the abused becoming the abuser. It’s too easy to tar and feather Macy without knowing the full story.

The bottom line is that things get quite muddy by the end of the book. I’m not going to tell you how it ends and I apologise for spoiling Lolita for any of you if you intend to read it in the future but the fact is that Nabokov lets that cat out of the bag in the book’s self-penned (under the name John Ray) foreword—but I do think there’s more to Lolito than I’ve been able to get out of it from a single read. At the end of Lolita Humbert says:

This then is my story. I have reread it. It has bits of marrow sticking to it, and blood, and beautiful bright-green flies.

In the final chapter of Lolito Etgar is sitting with his mum in the garden when she plucks “a green insect” off her forearm. Maybe I am reading into it but it’s impossible to read a novel called Lolito without recalling Lolita and it will always sit in its shadow. As for whether Lolito is a good book in its own right, I think it is. It made me think. I made me sit through three hours of Yale lectures[6] on Lolita and a BBC documentary[7]. Lolita is dated. The book is dated. The first film is certainly dated. The questions it raises are more relevant now than ever. Lolito is interesting and relevant because it deals with a problem that doesn’t perhaps get the amount of attention it ought, like husband beating, for example.

TadpoleA similar situation is dealt with in the 2000 film Tadpole in which a fifteen-year-old boy falls in love with his stepmother, Eve, (played by Sigourney Weaver and so totally understandable). He doesn’t have sex with her but he does with his mother’s friend and his parents just shrug it off. The film got a PG-13 certificate in the States and a 15 certificate in the UK. Based on 106 reviews collected by the film review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, 77% of critics gave the film a positive review. The whole abuse thing was carefully side-stepped by most people:

Oscar believes his stuffy, history professor dad is insensitive to Eve's needs and decides that, regardless of the obvious obstacles, he's going to win her love during his visit home, hoping to impress her with his charming manner, his knowledge of philosophy, and his ability to speak French. This plan is slightly derailed when he has an unexpected sexual encounter with Eve's fun-loving best friend, the also-40-year-old Diane. – John R. McEwen, The Republican

Unfortunately for the young ladies Oscar also has an obsession with his stepmother, Eve (Sigourney Weaver). Currently being ignored by the boy’s workaholic history professor dad (John Ritter), Oscar believes he can give the woman what she needs. As it turns out, he’s just as like to give Eve’s best friend Diane (Bebe Neuwirth) what she needs. Hilarity and adolescent confusion ensue. – Ron Wells, Film Threat

“Hilarity and adolescent confusion ensue.” Indeed.Harold and Maude it was not. Now that was a love story.

Bottom line then: If you’ve read this far then you know what you’re letting yourself in for if you decide to pick up a copy of either Lolita or Lolito. Both will make you think. Ben Brooks made me think that I’m glad I was fifteen in 1974 rather than now. I’m not actually that crazy about being fifty-four right now.
 
 

REFERENCES


[1] Amélie Rives, ‘Innocence versus Ignorance’, The North American Review, Vol. 155, p.287

[2]Ibid, p.292

[3] Vladimir Nabokov ‘On a Book Entitled Lolita’

[4]Ibid

[5] Alfred Appel, Jr., ‘The Artifice of Lolita’, The Annotated Lolita

[6] Open Yale Courses: ‘English 291: The American Novel Since 1945’, lectures five, six and seven.

[7]How Do You Solve a Problem Like Lolita?, BBC4, originally aired on 13 December 2009

Jock Tamson's Bairns

$
0
0

cover

[L]abels are for tins not people – Cally Phillips, A Week With No Labels



Let me take a couple of paragraphs to ease you into this week’s article. I watch a lot of science fiction. New stuff or old I’m really not fussed although if you want to label me I’m more of a Trekkie than a Star Wars Geek. Over the years science fiction has changed considerably and one of the main areas is that of tolerance. On Wednesday evenings my wife moderates an online forum for an hour during which I get to watch a ‘Jimmy programme’ so for the last few months I’ve been working my way through old Outer Limits episodes from the original series that was first aired in 1963. To say they’re dated is an understatement: the women are all helpless and in almost every one where there’s an alien the first thing people imagine is that it’s out to kill them whereas in the Star Trek: The Next Generationuniverse they usually give everyone the benefit of the doubt and women are frequently cast in positions of authority. Sometimes they’re both wrong in their assumptions and that’s the problems with assumptions—we’ve all heard the old joke about the you, me and ass—they’re sometimes way off the mark. Aliens can’t help that they’re different to us but there’s one thing that’s common across all science fiction: 99% of the time the humans don’t like to be called aliens—everyone else has to wear that label.

So what’s this got to do with today’s book which has nothing to do with science fiction? Quite a bit actually. Because the subject is disability. And the disabled—or, if you want to be more PC, the differently-abled—are not like you and me; they might as well be aliens. Some have big heads and bulging eyes and talk strangely, sometimes incomprehensively:

“Does he take sugar in his tea?”
Hello, why not ask me?
I might have a disability,
But to answer for myself I still have the ability.
Just ’cos I’m not stood up like you:
Does not mean there is very little for myself that I can do…
—Michael W. Williams, Connah’s Quay

For twenty years, up until April 1998 Radio 4 ran a weekly series called Does He Take Sugar? The reasons for its cancellation were even commented on by Parliament. You and Yours, Radio 4's weekday consumerist programme, was given the remit to include disability-related coverage in its content. I mention this for a reason. Part of me actually approves of the absorption into mainstream programming because that’s how things become normalised. It starts off small: the first female newscaster, the first interracial kiss, the first disabled actor to appear in a prime-time series. My wife and I are long-standing fans of the show Silent Witness. In season sixteen a new character was introduced played by the wheelchair-bound actress and comedian Liz Carr and virtually nothing was said about her appearance or her limitations. And that’s how it should be. She’s not an alien. I had to dig and dig to find out what’s actually wrong with her because she’s doesn’t talk about it because it’s not who she is although she does admit it’s a “huge definer” of who she is.

Aliens aren’t real and so we cope just fine with them. People with physical disabilities are and although we might often feel awkward round them we quickly suss out their limitations and are often surprised by how well they manage all things considered. And then there’s mental illness. That we don’t cope with so well. We don’t like things we can’t see. If a man has lost his leg or part of his leg we might skip inviting him to kick a ball about with us in the back yard but what about a man who’s lost his mind or a part of it?

Did you know Amazon has a Disabilities Best Sellers list? I certainly didn’t and I would never have thought to look had I not seen a brief mention of it in something Cally Phillips wrote online. Who goes there to look for books? Probably people with disabilities or people with family who have disabilities. Do black people only read books by black authors? Would a gay man read a book by a transgendered author? Is a self-published author letting the side down if he reads mainly traditionally published novels? Aren’t labels problematic?

The expression ‘We’re a’ Jock Tamson’s bairns’ sounds like it might’ve been culled from a poem by Robert Burns but the nearest he got to saying that, although the expression was probably common enough in his day, was when he wrote the song ‘Is There for Honest Poverty’, more commonly known as ‘A Man's a Man for A' That’ which ends:

For a' that, an' a' that,
It's coming yet for a' that,
That Man to Man, the world o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that.

The expression means ‘We’re all God’s children’ and it’s a fitting title for Cally Phillips’ short collection of stories. It’s a sampler—free as an ebook—and contains four short stories and an sizeable excerpt from her novel A Week withNo Labels which stands on its own quite well.

We may all be Jock Tamson’s bairns, we may all be equal under law but we are not all born equal; we are not all the same. In the book’s introduction Cally writes:

There is a scientific model which is called The Bell Curve. It’s the way we work out what is ‘normal’ in any given situation. It is defined as follows:

Noun: A graph of a normal (Gaussian) distribution, with a large rounded peak tapering away at each end.

Traditionally the Bell Curve has been used to judge ‘intelligence.’ This is fraught with a number of difficulties. In the first place defining ‘intelligence’ is very difficult. Nevertheless, people labelled with learning difficulties (intellectual disabilities or in the bad old days mental retardation) are considered outside the Bell Curve by very dint of them having an intellectual 'abnormality'. The question I ask is: Who ‘judges’ whether they are ‘normal?’ The answer: The ‘normal’ people of course. Do you see a potential problem with that?

Print

Moron, idiot, imbecile, cretin: I used all those terms as insults when I was a kid. I didn’t realise that they meant anything other than stupid. A moron, for example, used to be the term used for an adult with a mental age between eight and twelve. He’d take umbrage if you called him an idiot; there the mental age is two years or less. In time all of these got absorbed under the blanket term ‘retarded’ which now is also seen to be pejorative and there’s a big push on to eliminate the use of the word. It’s just a word. It’s people who turn a perfectly serviceable word into a derogatory one, e.g. ‘gay’. Am I a depressive or am I simply optimistically-challenged?

The opening four stories in Cally’s book deal with four individuals:

They’re based on personal experience but Cally’s keen to emphasise that they’re fictionalised accounts:

If there is any resemblance to real people in these fictional characters I’d say it’s only the good bits which are ‘real’, I’ve made up the bad bits!

In an interview with Susan Price she explains a bit of the background to the stories:

I was lucky enough to get to work (and get paid) doing 'drama' in mental health and disability settings and from that I developed a creative style (and a business) using drama as advocacy. For a lot of the time I was working in a pre-literate culture. So the 'writing' was very, very flexible as a concept. But for me, the active involvement in drama and 'voicing' the unvoiced through writing was absolutely the best time of my creative life (so far).

This is, I should point out, after a career working in television and theatre—her writing credentials are not to be sniffed at—and it was only for the sake of her health (and sanity from all accounts) that she left. Everyone has something. In her case it’s ulcerative colitis and I was interested in what she had to say in one of her blogs about how this has affected her perspective:

I’m lucky in that I’ve never personally had to deal with extreme mental health issues—unlucky in that while remaining mentally ‘strong’ a certain toll has been taken on me physically—and my condition is, I believe, quite a mimic of depression—I describe it as a ‘physical’ depression—when active, an extreme lethargy caused by physiological things (a compromised immune system leading to inflammation and bleeding) so that even if I’m in the happiest of moods my body tells me otherwise. Thus I have quite a lot of sympathy for people who experience what I’d call ‘real’ depression.

[…]

I’ve worked with and been friends with people diagnosed or ‘suffering’ from mental health problems. I’ve got family members who I know have had undiagnosed mental health problems for years. The 1 in 4 statistic is conservative in my opinion. We are all on a spectrum – but the focus for me definitely comes down on the side of looking at how to look after our mental health, not how to classify or label mental ‘illnesses’

Having been optimistically-challenged for many years I have to agree with her.

Let’s meet Gary:

Let me tell you all about Gary. Which really means just list what I ‘know’ about Gary and which tells you next to nothing of his reality. Of his individual lived experience. It’s a comment from the outside. I feel uncomfortable even attempting it. But what else can I do? I have no other way to introduce you to each other. So let me give you the ‘facts’ as we see them. Gary is blind. Gary doesn’t talk. Can’t talk? His hearing is suspect. His means of communication are therefore quite limited. As is his mobility. Despite being a huge lad, Gary’s preferred method of movement is to shuffle along on his bottom. He’s usually holding a sort of scruffy security blanket looking thing in one hand, which is actually used to wipe drool because he’s not good at keeping his mouth shut, and making some kind of a noise between a squeak (happy) and a scream (unhappy.) He is usually accompanied, at least here, by a care worker. Not exactly in hot pursuit, but usually in some level of distress or bemusement. Gary is not an easy lad to ‘care for.’ Because communication is so limited.

One of the big issues facing writers of science fiction is how to paint an alien world in as few lines as possible and this is the problem Cally faces here. On Silent Witness Liz Carr simply rolled into shot—don’t quote me on that because I can’t remember her first scene—and our eyes and ears did so much of the work for us. Cally has to describe a character who is alien to us and who exists in an alien environment:

Gary is known for exhibiting ‘challenging behaviour’ all too frequently causing ‘incidents’ that have to then be ‘reported’ and so whoever is attached to Gary knows they are not in for an easy ride. To me it seems fairly obvious that Gary will exhibit this ridiculous term ‘challenging’ behaviour. Think about it for a minute. What is Gary’s world like? Or more importantly, what is Gary’s experience of our world like? At best it must be hostile and worst terrifying. Can you imagine having to move around shuffling through the dark on your bum without the ability to tell someone what you want or know what’s round the corner. I wouldn’t like it, and I’m sure you wouldn’t. I suspect we might exhibit ‘challenging’ behaviour in such circumstances.

This is one of the reasons why people might avoid reading books about disabled people and yet they’ll happily pick up books about spies or adventurers in foreign lands or spacemen, people whose lives are far removed from their own. Why not read about people with disabilities? Is it because we’re okay with different but not with less?

There is a danger when you include a disabled character in a work of fiction that you become preachy: no one likes to get preached at. If I want to get preached at I’ll go to church. That said people don’t just read to be entertained; they read to be informed, to be educated, to be made to think, to see the world from a completely different perspective. And we don’t really get that because we don’t get to be inside Gary’s head. The narrator is our conduit. It’s like when she talks about Heather:

The game Heather likes to play is Animal Noises. And since she’d had such a poor start to the day, it seemed only fair to start with that. You may think you see a problem here. Heather can’t make any recognisable noise. And she can hardly move. Note ‘hardly.’ It’s all a question of how deeply you look. How profoundly you pay attention. Over time we have noticed that there is some movement. She can hold my hand. She doesn’t squeeze hard but she is doing the holding, it’s not me holding her. She can wave that hand about a bit, for a short time (when she’s not holding mine obviously) and she can stretch her neck and put out her tongue. With effort. Beyond that, like so many people with profound and multiple disabilities, she talks with her eyes. I’m still learning how to read eye-talk, it’s not that easy, but believe me, it can be done. It just takes more effort. Well, you don’t just leave someone on the bus now do you? You don’t just ignore the only way they can communicate? You learn. You try. You go to where they are. If you can’t meet them half way, you go as far as it takes to meet them. Well, that’s what I do. That’s nothing other than common sense and common decency in my book.

heil2I have, as many of you know, a cockatiel and, over the years, have been constantly amazed by his ability to communicate with me. You wouldn’t think there’d be much to see in those beady little eyes of his but you’d be wrong there. There’s a mind. People use the term ‘bird brain’ as an insult but clearly these people have never spent much time with a bird.

As far as stories go there’s not much of a story to any of these first four pieces. They all lead up to a moral—Gary does indeed get to play God and we’re told why that’s important—and so, yes, they are a bit on the didactic side. Part of the problem is that, although fictional, because of the setting they feel more like factual accounts, memoirs. The group is where we expect them to be, sitting in a circle with the similarly-ably-challenged—a scene from One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest just jumped into my mind, the one where McMurphy is trying to get everyone to vote to watch the game—and so we are already in a, for most of us, alien, if-not-clinical-then-at-least-institutional environment.

Jonjo’s story is better because he gets to narrate part of it himself. There are obvious reasons why giving Gary and Heather a ‘voice’ would be problematic but if animals can speak for themselves—I’m thinking of Grant Morrison’sWe3 and The Plague Dogs—then why not? But here’s a bit of Jonjo for you. Jonjo, before we start I should mention, is twelve and has ADHD:

[B]reaking a rule is a bad thing to do. And accidents do happen, my brother Bruce says. And one happened to me. While I was running. I don’t really remember it that well because I was in the middle of the happening so I couldn’t see what was going on, but Bruce says that I hit the car and bounced off the windscreen and nearly flew over the roof (which is kind of cool because I didn’t think kids could fly unless they were Peter Pan and he’s not real) and then I crumpled on the ground. Like a rag doll, Bruce says. Or it might have been a rag dog. I can’t remember. Either way. I like the flying bit of the story more than the rag bit. And I didn’t feel much like a rag. I felt like something which had been squished and flattened. Like when I dropped a big bit of concrete on my finger, but all over my body. Next thing I knew I was in this bed in the hospital. And it was nice and white and the sheets were crispy and the lights were sort of floody and there was another boy in the next bed. And I wanted to get up and run. And I couldn’t move. I couldn’t run. I was stuck. Like in a prison. But the prison was my own body. It wasn’t nice. It was my accident. Well, dad says it was the ‘consequence’ of my accident.

And everyone wanted to know ‘the reason’ why it had happened.

‘There is no reason to an accident,’ I said.

And then they all started on the same old story, ‘what’s wrong with Jonjo?’ ‘Why can’t Jonjo sit still?’ except now I couldn’t even sit at all. I had to lie down. It was awful.

This I liked better.

Angus has Asperger syndrome and we’re quite used to characters in fiction who have Aspergers. They’re quirky and often provide comic relief because they take things literally: Abed from Community or Max from Parenthoodor, probably the most well-known example, Ray from Rain Man. Angus isn’t interested in most things but the things he is interested in he’s very interested in:

The ‘facts’ as they are written down on his ‘profile’ are thus: ‘Angus acts like he isn’t interested.’ What value ‘facts’ eh? Of course, in a way he’s not interested. He’s not interested in many of the things you and I are interested in, but he’s very interested in the things he’s interested in – things you and I can’t be bothered to spend time on. For example, would you spend hour after hour looking at tin foil? Would the telephone area codes across the world be fascinating to you? … but what harm is Angus causing by his interests? Okay, when he blurts out some facts about the D-Day Landings randomly in the middle of a conversation on something seemingly unrelated it can be annoying but just because he’s ‘inappropriate’ doesn’t mean he’s not interested. He just has poor social skills. And I suggest that in dealing with Angus most of us exhibit pretty poor social skills. We don’t give him credit. We expect him to fit in with us. Why should he? Who is to say that his interests are more or less worthy than my interest in nineteenth century popular fiction or your interest in embroidery/horse-riding/sports. Each to his own, eh? We’re all Jock Tamson’s Bairns.

This is less of a story and more of a character study and hence probably the most preachy of the four standalone pieces. And, of course, it makes good points—there are plenty of good points to be made—but I would’ve still liked to see Angus do something. The whole problem with the does-he-take-sugar mentality is that it talks over the heads of the disabled and perversely that’s what happens here: Angus is talked about. In the first two stories more of an effort is taken to talk for the individuals in question. This is why the story I liked best here was the one where Jonjo gets to speak for himself.

week-with-no-labels-a-cally-phillipsThe five episodes that comprise A Week with No Labels were originally released on Kindle between the Monday and Friday of National Learning Disability Week back in June 2012 and were later collected into a single volume. ‘Monday’ is included in this sampler.

The feel here is different. Whereas the short stories focussed on an individual here we have a group run by a woman—her ‘label’ is ‘facilitator’—called Kate. The No Labels Drama Group consists of, in part:

ANNIE Is a forty six year old woman NOT a child so please don't treat her as one. She is an excellent natural actress and could give Meryl Streep a run for her money.

BARRY Is in his sixties and loves a good drama. He is the leader of the gang and demands the same high level of commitment from others as he puts in himself. Some may say he's a dreamer, but he certainly gets things done.

BILBO is in his fifties and likes to dance. Oh how he loves to dance. And no, he’s not a hobbit. Here’s the story. He was christened William Robert. He was known as Billy-Bob by his dad. His brother misheard this and called him Bilbo. The family compromised on Bilbo. It was just a hobbit they got into and it stuck.

DEIRDRE Doesn't like being called 'spazzy'. Okay so she's got a 'lazy' arm but that's no reason for abuse. She suffers from tunnel vision (and when she's around it seems to be catching) She likes to read, write and organise others.

MANDY Takes everything literally. Everything. Which can get her into a lot of funny situations. And some not so funny ones.

STEVIE Is in his twenties. He likes colours. He doesn't like talking but he's a whizz at mime. His favourite colour is brown and his favourite texture is crinkly.

That’s about half. Maybe it’s because Cally comes from a theatre background but I really appreciated this dramatis personæat the beginning of the book because it’s easy to lose track of everyone. The problem with the ebook, of course (the problem with all ebooks), is that you can’t keep your finger stuck in the front so you can flip back and forth as necessary. Groups are hard to write. I’ve never tried it. I have no idea where I’d start. I always feel sorry for those actors in Shakespeare who have maybe one line and yet have to hang about on stage trying to look interesting. On stage at least you can have a wee keek to see what they’re up to but on the printed page it’s not so easy to keep all those plates spinning and I do have to confess I did lose track a few times but that’s me; I freely admit that I struggle with (and find myself disliking) stories where there are too many characters. This is an entertaining piece though and the best thing in the book because we get to see these people in a real life setting, preparing for and performing in a play. It has the feel of the kind of thing our kids might do on a rainy Sunday afternoon—devise an entertainment which is full of mistakes and bad acting—but that’s part of its charm too.

My main problem with the book as a whole is that it’s about disability. It’s not just that there are disabled characters there. Virtually everyone in the book has some physical and/or mental problem; it’s hard enough to avoid the elephant in the room but when you’ve got a herd what’re you going to do but get trampled underfoot? This is not our world. This is like reading about pygmies in the Congo (or would that be short statured Congolese?): fascinating but still completely alien. There is a long list in Wikipedia of books where at least one of the characters has mental health issues. I’d tried to think of a few while I was writing this and was disappointed that Of Mice and Men at least didn’t jump to mind. The equivalent film page is much better organised.

This doesn’t mean that the book is not a worthwhile read because it is. I don’t suffer fools gladly and I can only imagine what it would be like being disabled and living in an idiocracy where every day they have to explain the blindingly obvious to someone who should know better. Jock Tamson’s Bairns is well-written, accurate, entertaining and sobering too. If it’s preachy—no, it is preachy—it’s because it needs to be. And just for a moment spare a thought for all those preachers out there who heave themselves up into their pulpits and repeat what they’ve said time and time and time again but whose words fall on deaf ears.

I think the novel A Week with No Labels would be the better read—this is only a sampler—and, of course, there’s nothing stopping you buying the book as soon as you’ve read that first chapter; that’s the beauty of the Internet. As a taster though—and for free—this is a decent introduction to the subject and the writer. You can download a copy here. A Week with No Labels is available here for a not unreasonable £2.99. In her review of the novel Julia James said “this modest production may be the most significant book I’ve read on my Kindle this year.” You can read her full review here.

***

CallyCally Phillips was born in England of Scottish parents. Now settled in Turriff, she has lived most of her life in Scotland. Educationally she has an MA (Hons) in Moral Philosophy with International Relations from St. Andrews University and an MSc in Applied Psychology of Intellectual Disability (Portsmouth) as well as a PG qualification in drama from Academy of Live and Recorded Arts, a PG Dip in Multimedia Design from Napier and an Open University Diploma in Health and Social Welfare.

She has been writing professionally for twenty years and has had drama broadcast on TV and radio as well many plays for stage. She was artistic director of Bamboo Grove Theatre Company from 2002-2006 and has worked with a variety of mental health/learning disability groups on creative projects.  She has undertaken residencies with Dumfries and Galloway Arts Association and West Lothian Youth Theatre as well as teaching many creative courses from dramatic/screenwriting to digital film editing and production.

She is currently the director of the Edinburgh ebook Festival which takes place in August and is working for Ayton Publishing Limited preparing a major new catalogue of Scottish writing which will be launched in 2014: “I’m nearly 11 volumes into my first 32 volume collection of ‘Forgotten Fiction’ – copy editing, introduction writing and general obsessing over publishing and history on a daily basis.”

She is the author of four novels, four collections of short stories and five books of plays including Bond is Back where the action takes place during a Bond-themed party that is more Abigail’s Party than Casino Royale.

You can read more of her work on the McStorytellers website.

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

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.

The Island of Whispers

$
0
0

Island of Whispers

For centuries … the rocky, whale-shaped islet was known to people on both sides of the Forth as Plague Island: a place to be avoided, a place of ghosts and demons and eerie, whispering winds. – Brendan Gisby, The Island of Whispers




Just as any new book involving a teenager inevitably gets lumbered with the epithet ‘Catcher in the Rye for the MTV/YouTube/Twitter generation’ the same goes for any book that revolves around anthropomorphic animals. It ends up being ‘Watership Down with mice or cats or, as in the case of Brendan Gisby’s novel The Island of Whispers, rats’. This doesn’t do the book any favours because Watership Down is a classic, has never been out of print since it was first published in 1972 and is, quite simply, a hard act to follow. It really is setting a book up to fail and many (not that there have been that many), like Aeron Clements’s The Cold Moons(Watership Down with badgers), have suffered because of the comparison. And we do like to compare things.

To be fair one shouldn’t feel especially guilty about comparing The Island of Whispers with Watership Down because, as Brendan writes:

I began to write the book shortly after attending the centenary celebrations of the Forth Bridge in 1990, when I had some time on my hands. I wanted to produce something which could be compared with Watership Down, but which would be set in my own territory.

[…]

It would employ the same basic ingredients: an oppressive animal society, a few courageous individuals willing to risk all to escape the oppression, the escape itself followed by a chase, and the happy ending of a new society being forged. But it would be an adventure story, pure and simple; nothing more, nothing deeper. And it would not be anything that purported to rival Watership Down.

frb199001

The Forth Bridge celebration © Gordon Stacks, October 1990

His ‘own territory’ is the Firth of Forth which is not, as one Goodreads reviewer thought, in the north of England; we Scots are a bit sensitive about stuff like that. The $64,000 question is: Does The Island of Whispers hold its own? Let’s compare it with three others:

Watership Down (1972) follows the lives of a group of rabbits as they leave their endangered warren in search of a safe new home. They travel across the English countryside, braving perilous danger, until they find a hill called Watership Down, where they begin a new warren. However, they are endangered by another warren, Efrafa, which is led by the authoritarian General Woundwort, and they are soon forced to defend their home and lives.

The Animals of Farthing Wood (1979) begins in the fictional Farthing Wood, which is being destroyed to make way for the building of human homes. The book follows the adventures of a group of animals who choose to leave their home in Farthing Wood and journey to White Deer Park, a fictional nature reserve.

The Cold Moons (1989) is a tale of the badgers of Cilgwyn who are faced with a choice of staying in the valley they have inhabited for a generations or embarking on a journey to find their Watership Down which is called Elysia. Some make it, some don't.

The Island of Whispers (2009) is set on a small island in the Firth of Forth. The only inhabitants are a colony of rats and their society is a totalitarian one. Seeing things for what they truly are a young rat decides to arrange for a small party to escape to the mainland and search for a new home where they can start afresh. An abandoned quarry turns out to be where they feel safe enough to establish their new society.

See a bit of a pattern there? There’s much of a muchness about all these books. They’re all basically The Incredible Journey: animals face a predicament (usually because of something Man’s done or intends to do) and have to take a dangerous and arduous journey in order to reach safety. That said Shelia Burnford chose not to anthropomorphise her animals (unlike Disney’s decision in 1993 remake, probably trying to cash in on the ‘success’ of the Look Who's Talking franchise). In the classic quest narrative structure the hero normally aims to obtain something or someone and then return home with this object intact. Often enough though they choose not to return or there’s nothing to left return to as is the case in the five books listed above. The original Duncton Wood (that would be Watership Down with moles) is a little different in that it’s actually a love story at its core although the sequel Duncton Quest was … well the title says it all.

Derivative isn’t necessarily bad. Often, to be fair, it is and some books are harder acts to follow than others. The trick is usually to put a spin on the original (e.g. West Side Story is basically Romeo and Julietwith songs and Warm Bodies is Romeo and Juliet with zombies); simply replacing rabbits with guineafowl isn’t necessarily going to cut it, though. Here’s the setting for Brendan’s book:

The rocky, whale-shaped islet which lies in the shadow of the Forth Railway Bridge is called Inchgarvie. Nowadays, the only creatures which live on the island are the seabirds on its eastern side and the huge colony of rats deep below the crumbling monastery on its western side. The colony has evolved over hundreds of years. Originally consisting of native black rats, it was conquered by much larger brown rats from a passing foreign ship. The native rats, or Scavengers, were enslaved. Over time, careful interbreeding produced a race of strong, black-furred warriors to protect, feed and keep watch for the brown rats. Thus evolved the colony’s present society: the Inner Circle of Rulers and the Outer Circle of Protectors, Hunters and Watchers. Presiding over the society is its ancient Chamberlain, Long Snout. – taken from a long synopsis which you can find here but only read it if you don’t mind spoilers

1984In many respects what we have here is a dystopian setting. The island is a microcosm. It is uninhabited by men—specifically religious men (bear in mind that in George Orwell’sNineteen Eighty-Four there is no religion bar Big Brother)—and there’s also evidence of a great war sometime in the past—a concrete gun emplacement also lies neglected.

The rats although they have the run of the island are a particularly insular bunch and most never venture outside their lair:

‘Comrades of the Dark World! The society created by our forefathers has endured many hardships through many generations. Yet it has survived—and it has prospered. It has survived because we are a disciplined society and because we are ever-vigilant. Yes, discipline and vigilance: these are the rules which govern our every way.

This is the Chamberlain addressing an Assembly of rats. He continues:

‘Comrades, our secret world remains hidden from the marauding Two-Legs because our lives are disciplined. Our presence on the world above is controlled carefully, kept to only a few Hunters and slaves each time—and always when darkness covers the land. Our time here in the underworld is spent in comfort. We do not allow our numbers to overrun the lairs. Unlike the Scavengers, who couple incessantly, we mate only during the Cold Cycle. The Selection also rids us of the weak and useless among our broods, keeping our society strong and able.

‘In the same way,’ continued Long Snout, ‘our sources of food are managed carefully.’

This is not so dissimilar to:

His sexual life, for example, was entirely regulated by the two Newspeak words sexcrime (sexual immorality) and goodsex (chastity). Sexcrime covered all sexual misdeeds whatever. It covered fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and other perversions, and, in addition, normal intercourse practised for its own sake.

[…]

He knew what was meant by goodsex—that is to say, normal intercourse between man and wife, for the sole purpose of begetting children, and without physical pleasure on the part of the woman: all else was sexcrime. – George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

Orwell’s society also has issues with food: The Inner Party gets luxury goods—coffee, real sugar, jam—Outer Party members and the proles struggle through various shortages. It’s the same with the rats: the brown rats get to eat gulls, the rest… well, I’ll let the Chamberlain tell you:

‘Warriors of the Outer Circle!’ cried Long Snout. ‘Your source of food is also plentiful and controlled with care. The Scavengers are the slaves of our society. They carry for us and dig for us. They are also your sustenance. We allow them to breed freely and to infest their lair. They devour each other to still their hunger. But those who survive are strong and well-fed, their flesh well able to satisfy your own appetites.

Cannibalism is, of course, a common trope in dystopian science fiction most famously Soylent Green.

In an e-mail Brendan told me:

I needed to give my rat colony a history and a structure. My research, for what it was worth, revealed that black rats were indigenous and quite small and that brown rats probably originated elsewhere in Europe and were much bigger. Both types could have reached the island from passing ships. I had it that the brown rats subjugated and enslaved the black rats and then mated with them to produce a half-breed race loyal to their brown masters. Whether such mating could ever occur in reality didn't really matter, because the story was a fantasy. The same applied to the island's ecosystem … and to things like the life-cycle of a rat. What mattered to me was the story itself and the characters within it.

I planned out the structure of the society very carefully. If the structure was influenced by Nineteen Eighty-Four, it must have been subconsciously, because I don't remember thinking about that book at all—or about Animal Farm for that matter. Again, readers and reviewers have made those comparisons—not the author!

wd_cdcoverThe Chamberlain is not the leader of the rats. That is White Muzzle, the King-rat, who we hear little of and nothing from—in that respect he is most like Big Brother, seen but not heard. Long Snout is more like O’Brien. Our Winston (or our Hazel if you’re still looking for connections to Watership Down) is Twisted Foot, named after a deformity that was overlooked during a cull allowing him time to prove his worth as a Watcher. There is no Julia. There are does of course (although they refer to them as she-rats) but they have little presence in the book and Brendan’s only defence there is that if he were writing the book now he would be less chauvinistic. The only significant event involving a female is the multiple rape of Grey Eyes. It’s not graphically described but a rape is a rape and this was one of the criticisms levelled against Watership Down when it first came out: these were not cute, fluffy bunnies:

"I'll kill him," gasped a low, choking voice behind them. They all leaped round. Bigwig had raised his head and was supporting himself on his forepaws alone. His body was twisted and his hind parts and back legs still lay along the ground. His eyes were open, but his face was such a fearful mask of blood, foam, vomit and earth that he looked more like some demon creature than a rabbit. The immediate sight of him, which should have filled them with relief and joy, brought only terror. They cringed away and none said a word. – Richard Adams, Watership Down

The Duncton Wood novels also have a similar reputation for springing gore and unpleasantness on the reader:

The first that came to him he hardly seemed to touch, yet down he fell, not only dead but torn to death; the second died of a talon thrust so powerful that it seemed to start at his snout and end at his tail; the third turned to run even before he attacked, but too late. A mighty lunge from Mandrake caught him too, and he lay screaming, his black fur savaged open, red blood glistening. And as Mandrake passed by, he coldly crashed his snout and left him there arced out in a bloody, searing, ruthless death. Then they backed before him this way and that, chattering in fear, running away, taking to surface routes in their fright. – William Horwood, Duncton Wood

Well, rats never had the best of standings to begin with—although they’re not always presented as evil creatures (e.g. Roland Rat and Remy from Ratatouille)—and so what would we expect them to behave like? This is a violent world. There is no legal system. There is no religious order. This a single-party state and there is only the party line. Those who don’t toe it pay:

The scenes were blurred, frightening: Long Snout towering over the clearing, the blood of newly born young congealed on his enormous fangs; Neck-Snapper hissing and spitting death, green pus festering in his ragged eyehole; Grey Eyes surrounded by snarling Protectors, her small body lacerated and bleeding. The images of light and darkness vied with each other, struggling for dominance, like a battle between good and evil. – Brendan Gisby, The Island of Whispers

In the beginning of chapter seven of Nineteen Eighty-Four, we learn that the proles make up 85% of the population of Oceania, and according to Winston, if they could only be made aware of their power, they could overthrow the party. In pre-revolutionary France the Third Estates encompassed 97% of the population and in Russia before the Revolution the Peasants accounted for about 95%. If the party controls the weapons—be they guns or teeth, claws and a bad attitude—and the stream of information it should be no problem controlling the masses. Much the same is true of the Scavengers in The Island of Whispers—although the difference isn’t as profound—only in some respects it’s even worse for them because they’re segregated from the rest of the rats and kept oblivious to what’s going on. They’ve been imprisoned for so long they don’t even realise there is another world topside.

Dreams feature is all three books. Winston Smith dreams of the Golden Country, a pastoral setting, a sort of paradise. A young woman strips. Her actions indicate she has cast the Party’s control aside. This is likely a twofold imagine. It’s probably a place he remembers from his childhood but it may also foreshadow the defeat of the Party, meeting and falling in love with Julia, and the clothes are the Party restrictions they cast aside.

In Watership Down Fiver has a dream which he relates to Hazel:

"Oh, Hazel! I was dreaming. It was dreadful. You were there. We were sitting on water, going down a great, deep stream, and then I realized we were on a board--like that board in the field--all white and covered with black lines. There were other rabbits there--bucks and does. But when I looked down, I saw the board was all made of bones and wire; and I screamed and you said, 'Swim--everybody swim'; and then I was looking for you everywhere and trying to drag you out of a hole in the bank. I found you, but you said, 'The Chief Rabbit must go alone,' and you floated away down a dark tunnel of water."

"Well, you've hurt my ribs, anyway. Tunnel of water indeed! What rubbish! Can we go back to sleep now?"

"Hazel--the danger, the bad thing. It hasn't gone away. It's here--all round us. Don't tell me to forget about it and go to sleep. We've got to go away before it's too late."

In The Island of Whispers Twisted Foot also has dreams:

The dreams kept waking Twisted Foot. At first, there were bright, sharp images of a clearing among the trees. He didn’t know where the clearing was, only that it was far away, deep in the woodlands. The sun was shining. They were basking in its warmth. Grey Eyes was there; and young Soft-Mover, his jet-black coat glistening as he moved through the tall grass. Fat One was dozing under a tree. His other companions were in the clearing with their mates and young ones. There was an aura about the place, a deep glow of happiness. It seemed that if he reached out from his dream he could touch the glow, let the warmth course through him.

The nudge to consider escape as an option comes—as with Hazel—from a third party, in this case Long Ears who realises he’s not a natural leader—“I am too weak, too afraid”—but he can see that Twisted Foot has the necessary cunning, courage and intelligence and, especially after learning of the rape of his mate, the incentive. The question is: Will they succeed and if so at what cost?

The dreams are the only thing here that could be considered a fantasy element but since they were preceded by Long Ears’s proposal I’m happy to take them as tailchasersimply dreams and not read into them unlike the prophetic dreams in Watership Down or Fire Bringer(Watership Down with deer). I found the lack of a belief system a little harder to accept—religion has always proven a most effective way of keeping folk (especially simple folk) in their place. If the sun suddenly became a sun god (as Frith is to the rabbits) and there was always the threat of being burned alive wouldn’t that prove an excellent deterrent and keep the rats in their place? There’s also no mythology attached to Man. In Tailchaser’s Song (Watership Down with cats) the cats view "M'an" as a race of deformed descendants of cats which I thought was an interesting notion. Again, as with everything else, the rats show little imagination: the Two-Legs are what the Two-Legs do and no one seems at all interested in their motives.

Books like Watership Down and Duncton Wood stand apart from fantasy works like Redwall (where the mice fight with swords) in that they aim to be as realistic as possible when presenting the characteristics and behavioural patterns of the animals in question and both of these books succeed in that respect. Adams's descriptions of wild rabbit behaviour were based on The Private Life of the Rabbit (1964), by British naturalist Ronald Lockley. Horwood has also been commended for his research. Brendan has clearly done some research but decided not to stick rigorously to the facts—e.g. rats in the wild rarely survive more than a year to eighteen months so what would ‘old’ be to a rat?—and treats the rats, in some respects, like little humans. Which works—it’s not a flaw; it’s a creative decision and most readers won’t think twice about it.

Brendan’s goal was to write “an adventure story, pure and simple; nothing more, nothing deeper” and he has achieved that. If that’s all you’re looking for in a book then buy a copy of this right away; you will not be disappointed. I, however, was disappointed because there was the potential here for more. He completed the first three parts quite quickly, but had to stop at that point because of business commitments and it was not until 2009, almost twenty years later, that he picked up the manuscript again and completed the final two parts. Here was an opportunity to reach for the stars and one that was missed. Part of me understands because when I came to edit my first two novels ten years after they were first written I chose to keep them as a record of the man I was then rather than try to make them into something else so it would be hypocritical to make too much of the fact Brendan’s novel falls short of some imaginary mark. It has exceeded his goal anyway. It’s not simple “an adventure story”. It’s thought-provoking and certainly a good book for teenagers who might balk at reading most of the other books mentioned above for various different reasons. That said the title is not exciting nor is the current cover. An earlier version sported a rat on the cover and I thought that was better; the current cover looks more like a travel guide.

You can read four excerpts from the book online:

It’s available both as an ebook and as a paperback.

Viewing all 404 articles
Browse latest View live