In a great little article in the Guardian today Gabriel Josipovici (right) an ex prof of comparative lit at Oxford University "condemned the work of the giants of the modern English novel as hollow. He said they were like 'prep-school boys showing off' and virtually indistinguishable from one another in scope and ambition."As dedicated readers of this blog will no doubt be fed up hearing this is exactly my thesis: rich kids can't write. Initially I tarred both sides of the Atlantic with the same brush but commenters have convinced me that this is more of an English phenomenon than an American one. Private school boys and especially boarding school boys are cut off from the complexity of everyday life by their seclusion in a narrow caste and thus their attempts to produce great art almost always fail, getting bogged down in "cleverness" and a disenchantment with post school life. While 5% of the English population goes to private school (and less than 2% to boarding school) the upper echelons of the BBC, the national newspapers, the TLS etc. are filled with this so called "cream of the crop" which is a self perpetuating and self promoting oligarchy. (The current UK Prime Minister, of course, has never had a real job and he went to Eton and Oxford as did many of his cabinet. And so it goes...) I think Josipovici talks a lot of sense so I'm quoting a big chunk of the Guardian's article below. (I do think he's wrong about Rushdie, however. To me Midnight's Children is a work of genius and genius seems to blossom no matter how barren or plush the circumstances):
...
The fact that such writers [Amis etc] had won so many awards was "a mystery", to Josipovici. He added: "It's an ill-educated public being fed by the media – 'This is what great art is' – and they lap it up." It is a view apparently now shared by at least some others, given that the latest offerings by Martin Amis, McEwan and Rushdie were among the more prominent omissions from this year's Man Booker longlist, revealed earlier this week. "We are in a very fallow period," Josipovici said, calling the contemporary English novel "profoundly disappointing – a poor relation of its ground-breaking modernist forebears".
He said: "Reading Barnes, like reading so many other English writers of his generation – Martin Amis, McEwan – leaves me feeling that I and the world have been made smaller and meaner. The irony which at first made one smile, the precision of language which was at first so satisfying, the cynicism which at first was used only to puncture pretension, in the end come to seem like a terrible constriction, a fear of opening oneself up to the world. "I wonder, though, where it came from, this petty-bourgeois uptightness, this terror of not being in control, this schoolboy desire to boast and to shock." Such faults were less generally evident in Irish, American, or continental European writing, he added.
Laurence Sterne's 18th-century novel Tristram Shandy remained more avant-garde than the so-called avant-garde today, Josipovici argued. "An author like Salman Rushdie takes from Sterne all the tricks without recognising the darkness underneath. You feel Rushdie's just showing off rather than giving a sense of genuine exploration."
Referring to graduates, like McEwan, of the University of East Anglia's famous creative writing course, Josipovici said: "They all tell stories in a way that is well crafted, but that is almost the most depressing aspect of it — a careful craft which seems to me to be hollow." He singled out The Comfort of Strangers, McEwan's story of obsession, as easy to read but lacking "a sense of destiny, of other worlds suggested but lying beyond words...One finishes them and feels, 'So what?' – so very different from the gut-wrenching experience of reading Herman Melville's Bartleby." Josipovici extended his criticism to one of the behemoths of modern US writing, Philip Roth. "For all Roth's playfulness – a heavy-handed playfulness at the best of times – he never doubts the validity of what he is doing or his ability to find a language adequate to his needs. As a result, his works may be funny, they may be thought-provoking, but only as good journalism can be funny and thought-provoking."
Overall, he said, while the likes of Kafka were plagued by self-doubt, his modern peers seemed arrogant and self-satisfied, "which is mildly depressing". Many of the authors named by Josipovici are published by Random House. A spokesman for the publisher said: "Obviously we wouldn't agree. I don't think the authors would want to comment either."
The fact that such writers [Amis etc] had won so many awards was "a mystery", to Josipovici. He added: "It's an ill-educated public being fed by the media – 'This is what great art is' – and they lap it up." It is a view apparently now shared by at least some others, given that the latest offerings by Martin Amis, McEwan and Rushdie were among the more prominent omissions from this year's Man Booker longlist, revealed earlier this week. "We are in a very fallow period," Josipovici said, calling the contemporary English novel "profoundly disappointing – a poor relation of its ground-breaking modernist forebears".
He said: "Reading Barnes, like reading so many other English writers of his generation – Martin Amis, McEwan – leaves me feeling that I and the world have been made smaller and meaner. The irony which at first made one smile, the precision of language which was at first so satisfying, the cynicism which at first was used only to puncture pretension, in the end come to seem like a terrible constriction, a fear of opening oneself up to the world. "I wonder, though, where it came from, this petty-bourgeois uptightness, this terror of not being in control, this schoolboy desire to boast and to shock." Such faults were less generally evident in Irish, American, or continental European writing, he added.
Laurence Sterne's 18th-century novel Tristram Shandy remained more avant-garde than the so-called avant-garde today, Josipovici argued. "An author like Salman Rushdie takes from Sterne all the tricks without recognising the darkness underneath. You feel Rushdie's just showing off rather than giving a sense of genuine exploration."
Referring to graduates, like McEwan, of the University of East Anglia's famous creative writing course, Josipovici said: "They all tell stories in a way that is well crafted, but that is almost the most depressing aspect of it — a careful craft which seems to me to be hollow." He singled out The Comfort of Strangers, McEwan's story of obsession, as easy to read but lacking "a sense of destiny, of other worlds suggested but lying beyond words...One finishes them and feels, 'So what?' – so very different from the gut-wrenching experience of reading Herman Melville's Bartleby." Josipovici extended his criticism to one of the behemoths of modern US writing, Philip Roth. "For all Roth's playfulness – a heavy-handed playfulness at the best of times – he never doubts the validity of what he is doing or his ability to find a language adequate to his needs. As a result, his works may be funny, they may be thought-provoking, but only as good journalism can be funny and thought-provoking."
Overall, he said, while the likes of Kafka were plagued by self-doubt, his modern peers seemed arrogant and self-satisfied, "which is mildly depressing". Many of the authors named by Josipovici are published by Random House. A spokesman for the publisher said: "Obviously we wouldn't agree. I don't think the authors would want to comment either."
29 comments:
That was a great post, and I could go on and on about the reasons agree with you.
No, I definitely wouldn't say that Rushdie leaves you feeling that the world is smaller and meaner. I have to say that I didn't really get the fuss about Midnight's Children, or at least I might have accused it of being merely clever, but either Rushdie grew by the time he wrote Satanic Verses or I grew to understand him better, because I think he's marvelous.
As for the rest of the boarding school boys, well, I haven't read enough. I don't think they are quite as much on American radar as they are across the Atlantic, though I have friends who admire McEwan and Amis a lot. I've never really gotten on that bandwagon, though. I remember reading McEwan's Amsterdam not long after I read Tim Park's Europa, and thought Europa a much better novel.
I do have to say that the elite public school boys don't really dominate the scene from an American perspective. There's A.S. Byatt, Zadie Smith and Hilary Mantel, and that's only to name a few. None of them seem particularly mean spirited to me.
I don't really think people don't read because books are bad either. I think they don't read because they live in a world of glittering distractions. And Josipovich sounds a bit sour himself, although I've liked some things he's written in the past.
Sean
No go on. There will be dissenters.
Seana
I dont know, I find Mantel and Byatt studied, cold, aloof and parochial - all the things he's talking about. I like Smith.
Let me approach this another way: the movie Inception - why is that everyone's dreams in the movie are the dreams of a 13 year old boy in an action movie? Because thats the mindset of the film-makers. In The Science of Sleep, Michel Gondry's dreams were all about desire, but Christopher Nolan is frightened by the erotic as are Amis, Barnes, McEwan etc. They dont take it (or anything) seriously which can be charming in small doses but fatal for the length of an entire novel.
And I do think it hurts when unreadable books win the Booker Prize year after year. Its maybe the one novel someone with a busy might buy in a twelvemonth and they can get twenty pages in.
I was on board with Josipovici in principle at least(Rushdie being an exception for me, too) until he started citing examples of great novels. Sounds like there's been nothing worth reading for about two hundred years, if you take him at face value. Okay, maybe he doesn't like what a certain kind of English writer is churning out these days, but what about David Peace? David Mitchell? Sebastian Faulks? Kazuo Ishiguro?
Okay, he mentioned The Inheritors, and a gold star and spotter's badge for that one. But even Golding is from a completely different generation.
Maybe Josipovici just needs someone a bit more hip to buy his books for him.
Cheers, Dec
Dec
He might be right about Henry James though, Henry James might be the ne plus ultra of the modernist novelist, I wouldnt know though because I've never quite managed to finish a Henry James novel.
David Peace and David Mitchell are interesting arent they? Both fled England, married Japanese women and lived in Japan for decades. Their fiction is NOT parochial, is wildly inventive, readable and interesting.
I think Declan's comment is what I'm trying to say too. Not everyone's a genius, but there are a lot of good writers out there, and it's a shame to just slam an entire generation that way.
I don't actually find Byatt or Mantel cold. I liked an interview I read with Mantel describing how she came up with ideas for Places of Greater Safety lying in these enormous carpet extras while she worked in a department store or something. I don't think either of them have that condescending acrid edge.
I think heart may be lacking in general, but that's a problem of our times. It isn't really up to the writer to provide what isn't there, is it?
Seana
Oh I'm only speaking of the prose. I'm sure she's lovely.
I dont think these times are much different from any other times.
I'm reading Wolf Hall right now. I like it.
You're probably right about the times. At least Dickens would agree. Maybe I just mean it's more fashionable to be heartless. I was reading Girish's piece on Godard this morning, so maybe I'm thinking that what we aspire to is a bit different now.
De gustibus and all that, but I actually agree that Rushdie is mostly just clever (based only on reading Satanic Verses), but I really like Byatt a lot.
When she's at her best, I think there is a lot of feeling in her books, although there are definitely times when she can be arch instead.
But I don't think any of this has anything to do with why people aren't reading. If someone's only reading one or two books a year, the latest Man Booker winner probably isn't even in the running -- you're talking Dan Brown territory.
FWIW, my dad liked the one McEwan book he read, and he reads on the order of a book every couple of months, and very little of that "literary fiction."
To get ready for the new season of Mad Men I read a bunch of John Cheever short stories. Upper middle-class east coasters, for sure, but the thing that struck was me was that something significant happened to the characters in every story. Not many Don Drapers, but a lot of Pete Campbells in those stories - and just as lacking in self-awareness.
Now, this idea that the dreams in Inception are those of 13 year old boys is interesting and I'm not surprised. I have this theory (in its early, half-baked stages, of course) that one problem we have with literature these days is that there's a widening gap between the fantasy we're feeding kids and adult fiction. There's no bridge. And as the gap widens we just get more and more fantasy for adults as well.
People complained a lot about the baby boomers living lives of extended adolescense, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised their kids are, too.
I was in a lift with the late Evening Standard editor Stewart Steven and one of his lackeys many years ago and Steven was asked if he'd appointed Emma Soames as editor of the paper's glossy ES magazine.
"Of course," he barked.
"Why 'of course'?" asked the lackey.
"Because she's Churchill's grand-daughter!"
She joined a long and generally undistinguished list of public school types who were appointed to senior jobs on the strength of their background rather than any discernible talent. Needless to say, the paper no longer exists in any significant form.
I used to think that Rushdie was just clever too, but I had a different reaction to Satanic Verses than you did, Gavin. I think the long pilgrimage to the sea was one of those points.
I haven't seen Inception and have tried not to read much about it in case I do, but I take the point about thirteen year old boys being the standard. I have to say that I don't really know what men's incentive to grow up really is anymore. What are they supposed to do when they get there?
McEwan surprised me in a recent interview I heard. I thought he would be a very cold fish, but he didn't seem so at all. He definitely didn't seem like someone who was always trying to score points off other people at all. Everyone's so down on the very unlikeable main character of Solar that I feel compelled to read it at some point. I feel pretty certain that this is one that people are getting at least partially wrong just because they can't 'identify' with him.
Gav
I get the arch but not the feeling. And I also dont like her milieu, all these upper middle class rich folks just bore the pants off me with their phoney problems. To me reading AS Byatt is like watching Love Actually on a plane, you do it but you dont know what you're doing it and you dont like it.
Seana
I'm impressed with you. I gave up on Wolf Hall. Just couldnt take it anymore.
I may try it again as an audio though.
John
I think thats absolutely right. We are infantalised by our movies, by our TV, by our newspapers (such as they are) and by this medium we're on right now.
When The New York Times did a profile of some woman from Jersey Shore I knew that a line had been crossed.
On the Cheever front. Yes. Agree. Especially The Swimmer and the one about the woman who stalks the guy off the train.
David
Yes thats one thing I love about Australia. Nobody stands for that nonsense. Even the Yanks are more susceptible for titles and heritage.
Yeah, Adrian, "The Five Forty-Eight," a great story.
I doubt it would be published today unless the girl would shoot him in the end, or somehow get revenge and come out, "the winner."
The Stieg Larsson approach, I guess.
I still think it's the triumph of fantasy, but I'm a defeatist and I think the gamne is over.
But then, Mad Men has Pete Campbell rape the au pair and not suffer any consequences (internal or external) and she doesn't come back with a gun or even tell anyone.
John
She makes him grovel in the dirt or something, right? Its perfect. Of course The New Yorker would never have allowed the gun battle ending in those days.
Speaking of great stories. I read a cracker yesterday. The House of Asterion by Borges. 3 pages long.
I should have said I'm liking it, because I haven't finished it yet.
I wouldn't have said Byatt is all about rich people. Some of her best characters are poorer people who find themselves working for the rich. I liked the governess, or whatever she was in that Angels and Insects two novella collection. I actually haven't read all that much Byatt, though. Never attempted that four book thing she did.
I don't think the game is over, John. I just think it's one where all the rules changed halfway through, and everyone is still trying to figure out what they are.
I'll look for the Borges. And the Cheever. I think I've read the Swimmer, but maybe it's just so famous that I think I read it.
Funny, someone on good reads recommended a short story to me today too. Not a typical start to my morning.
Yeah, Adrian, she makes him grovel in the dirt, but then he goes home.
It reminds me of a scene in the TV show, NYPD Blue where a bunch of rich frat boys get arrested and their parents use political connections to make the charges go away. But then the parents want the cops to talk to the boys and they expect a kind of scared straight, "you were lucky this time," speech, but what they get is an honest lecture about how they'll go through their lives leaving damage in their wake and not giving a shit and never being affected by any of it.
I think that may be what we mean by a lack of working-class literature - that honesty about the way the world works. There is some dignity in honesty, I think, and that's what we want.
In other words, Kureishi has never won it. DAMN BLAST FOOK.
I will have to read the article now. Thanks for bringing this up, Adrian - I have read one of Josipovici's books and was distinctly underwhelmed by it, so ignored the article first time up.
..and Google reveals that all that is left for Hanif is to write a screenplay of someone else's Booker Prize winner. DOUBLE DAMN.
Seana
The one I'm rec'ing you could read on a coffee break. You'll like it.
John
That sounds like a great episode. Doesnt it seem these days that TV writing is so much more mature than anything we see in other media?
Gen
Well its good for him. The money is in film. The Booker Prize is way too flukey and weird to really count for anything. Anthony Burgess never won the Booker.
Great post.
I have trouble with a lot of the same authors, finding that even if I enjoy one of their books, many of their others are impossible for me (I liked THE INNOCENT, for instance, but couldn't get through three pages of ATONEMENT).
But Rushdie seems like an odd one to throw in with the lot mentioned. I feel like his work has a much larger concern and is just more outright ambitious. His games so far have come with a purpose for me. And I just couldn't get over MIDNIGHT'S CHILDREN - the invention for language, story and theme floored me.
I have to agree about TV. Or some of it anyway. We have HBO, largely, to thank for that.
Mal
The movie Atonement is one of my real annoyances. It was so stupid from start to finish. Total falsity and nonsense. I was very ticked off. I almost walked out when the caption "four years later" came up and they're at Dunkirk. 1935 + 4 years = 1939. Dunkirk of course was in 1940 but nobody knew that because the filmmakers are all idiots.
Post a Comment