In 2007 there were a staggering 50,071 new works of fiction published in the US, or about a book every 30 minutes. This reminded me of the famous Kurt Vonnegut quip that there’s really only two plotlines in existence – ‘man falls in hole’, and ‘boy meets girl’ – which if he’s right would make for an awful lot of repetition.
More than anything else this might account for the increasing, willful absurdity of a lot of modern fiction. Even in the last few years we’ve had books narrated by a murder victim (Lovely Bones) and an autistic teenager (The Curious case of the Dog at Night Time), both very successful, and both upending ideas of the ‘unreliable narrator.’
All of this came to mind as I read for the first time Nabakov’s excellent Pale Fire, published back in 1962. It’s a great example of a novel novel: a twisty tale masquerading as a definitive, annotated edition of the last work of a (fictional) famous poet. I guess Nabakov was teaching at the time at Cornell, and he has great fun skewing academics and the academic interpretation of literature. The poem of the title, which is at the heart of the book, alternates between gorgeous, haunting imagery and great jokes, and the daft annotations that follow are laugh-out-loud, like Lolita. I feel I’m missing 90 percent of the references, but this is still one of the best books I’ve read in a long time.
Not many writers can pull-off literary tricks like Pale Fire, but here are a few other novel novels that derive a lot of impact from pulling apart the conventional narrative structure.
Time’s Arrow is probably Martin Amis’ best book, and mostly overlooked. It starts from an end, and end with a beginning: the books is entirely in reverse, following the death to birth passage of a man’s life, a Nazi war criminal who from old age moves back through youth and to Germany, where in a concentration camp he brings back to life millions of Jews. The book works in a lot of different ways, not least as a comment on redemption and atonement.
Vikram Seth, like Amis, was the golden boy of literature for a while, and wrote Golden Gate just before the fame hit. The whole novel, set in contemporary San Francisco, is written in iambic pentameter. At one point midway through the book Seth breaks down the “fourth wall” and directly addresses the reader – not as some postmodern trick, but out of exasperation with having to invent more plot with the right meter.
Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell got raves in the UK but far less adulation in the US. Some of the criticism has merit, but this book is still wonderful. Here the multiple narrators begin their tales then suddenly switch mid-sentence, and the six stories are dovetailed together in an ascending and descending sequence, each written is a distinctive style and voice that is utterly convincing.
And lastly, I read the latest Bond opus, Devil May Care, written by Sebastien Faulks writing as Ian Fleming. This is a hoot, and Faulks really is writing as Fleming here – pitch perfect, sexist, racist, and with a subtly subversive plot perfectly preserved in some early 1960s world that never really existed at all.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Skin Deep Politics
American politics can often appear shallow, but who would have thought it was only skin deep.
Last week the New York Times, in conjunction with CBS News, published their latest poll on the US presidential race. And Oh, what a shock:
After years of growing political polarization, much of the divide in American politics is partisan. But Americans’ perceptions of the fall presidential election between Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, also underlined the racial discord that the poll found. More than 80 percent of black voters said they had a favorable opinion of Mr. Obama; about 30 percent of white voters said they had a favorable opinion of him.
On the other side, about 35% of whites have a positive opinion of McCain, compared to only 5% of blacks. Layer on this more research showing that about 30% of Americans admit to feelings of racial bias.
Then this week John McCain, who has a history of melanoma, announced that he's had a spot removed from his face, which is undergoing further testing. In a speech yesterday, McCain urged all Americans to use sunscreen and stay out of the sun if possible.
Both presumptive candidates have skin in the election game, literally. For one, it is about race, and for the other, age.
Last week the New York Times, in conjunction with CBS News, published their latest poll on the US presidential race. And Oh, what a shock:
After years of growing political polarization, much of the divide in American politics is partisan. But Americans’ perceptions of the fall presidential election between Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, also underlined the racial discord that the poll found. More than 80 percent of black voters said they had a favorable opinion of Mr. Obama; about 30 percent of white voters said they had a favorable opinion of him.
On the other side, about 35% of whites have a positive opinion of McCain, compared to only 5% of blacks. Layer on this more research showing that about 30% of Americans admit to feelings of racial bias.
Then this week John McCain, who has a history of melanoma, announced that he's had a spot removed from his face, which is undergoing further testing. In a speech yesterday, McCain urged all Americans to use sunscreen and stay out of the sun if possible.
Both presumptive candidates have skin in the election game, literally. For one, it is about race, and for the other, age.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
National Insanity
In 1790 the population of what is now the USA was about 3.9 million, or 41/2 people per square mile of settled territories. About 2.3 million were immigrants, and about 20% of that population was African (but rising to 43% in slave states like South Carolina). Indigenous native Americans still represented a substantial part of the population, mostly in the west. The life expectancy at birth was less than 40 years. Possessions of colonists were few, but in a study of estate records from the time, as high as 70% of households had a firearm, compared to only 25% who owned a Bible. Most guns had a flintlock mechanism for firing, and required hand-loading with shot and powder.
In 2008 the population of the USA is about 301 million, or about 85 people per square mile. Almost all the population are descendants of immigrants, and about 16% are African American. The native American population has all but vanished. Life expectancy at birth is well over 70 years. Possessions are many, with about 35% of households reporting owning a gun and as high as 90% owning a Bible. There are something close to 200 million licensed firearms in the US (households with firearms typically own more than one), of which about 65 million are handguns capable of carrying up to 10 rounds that can each be fired in quick succession.
At the end of 1791 the Second Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified providing a right to bear arms. This last week the Supreme Court decided that the amendment provided individuals with these rights, and made it very difficult for states to pass legislation limiting the ability to own and carry guns.
I'm not expert on American political democracy, and as a Brit I'm more familiar with the parliamentary process and common law (we have no constitution providing fundamental rights and obligations). And the idea of enshrining 'unalienable rights' for the individual seems very American to me. All that said, has nobody noticed that things have changed around here??? At what point do you acknowledge that laws passed hundreds of years ago are irrelevant and need to be reexamined?
There are a lot of complex arguments about this issue, and there's a mountain of research that provides supporting evidence for all sides. But take this, from an NRA-sponsored report:
The United States has the highest male teen homicide rate in the industrialized world (23.0 per 100,00 among males aged 15 to 19 in 1996). A 1997 study that compared firearm death rates in 26 industrialized countries among children less than 15 years old found that the firearms homicide rate among U.S. children was nearly 16 times higher than the rate among children in the other 25 industrialized countries combined.32 In 1996 the rate of firearms homicide was highest among males aged 20 to 24 (30.3 per 100,0000)—more than five times the firearms homicide rate for all Americans (6.0 per 100,000).
What typically follows in any debate about the facts above is largely abstract, and centers on ideas of individual liberty. This is a national insanity. The focus of the debate on guns should not be on any sense of individual right, and we should instead be pouring all our resources into creating and enforcing strong federal laws that seriously limit access to all firearms. Because I'm sick of reading things like this. And this. And this.
In 2008 the population of the USA is about 301 million, or about 85 people per square mile. Almost all the population are descendants of immigrants, and about 16% are African American. The native American population has all but vanished. Life expectancy at birth is well over 70 years. Possessions are many, with about 35% of households reporting owning a gun and as high as 90% owning a Bible. There are something close to 200 million licensed firearms in the US (households with firearms typically own more than one), of which about 65 million are handguns capable of carrying up to 10 rounds that can each be fired in quick succession.
At the end of 1791 the Second Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified providing a right to bear arms. This last week the Supreme Court decided that the amendment provided individuals with these rights, and made it very difficult for states to pass legislation limiting the ability to own and carry guns.
I'm not expert on American political democracy, and as a Brit I'm more familiar with the parliamentary process and common law (we have no constitution providing fundamental rights and obligations). And the idea of enshrining 'unalienable rights' for the individual seems very American to me. All that said, has nobody noticed that things have changed around here??? At what point do you acknowledge that laws passed hundreds of years ago are irrelevant and need to be reexamined?
There are a lot of complex arguments about this issue, and there's a mountain of research that provides supporting evidence for all sides. But take this, from an NRA-sponsored report:
The United States has the highest male teen homicide rate in the industrialized world (23.0 per 100,00 among males aged 15 to 19 in 1996). A 1997 study that compared firearm death rates in 26 industrialized countries among children less than 15 years old found that the firearms homicide rate among U.S. children was nearly 16 times higher than the rate among children in the other 25 industrialized countries combined.32 In 1996 the rate of firearms homicide was highest among males aged 20 to 24 (30.3 per 100,0000)—more than five times the firearms homicide rate for all Americans (6.0 per 100,000).
What typically follows in any debate about the facts above is largely abstract, and centers on ideas of individual liberty. This is a national insanity. The focus of the debate on guns should not be on any sense of individual right, and we should instead be pouring all our resources into creating and enforcing strong federal laws that seriously limit access to all firearms. Because I'm sick of reading things like this. And this. And this.
Friday, June 20, 2008
The New Frugalist
Although England has a reputation for heritage and retrospection, judging by the national daily papers it's pretty enthralled by fad and fancy too. When I was in the UK last week I tried to read a couple of papers a day, and they were filled with the usual blink-and-you-miss-it celebrity froth, pop-culture impulse and political nonsense.
One thing did catch my eye – the new Frugalism. I say “new” Frugalism because the idea has been talked about a long time before now, in the context of Victorian industrial economics. But according to the Independent, today's Frugalist is motivated by more complex concerns. This is a blend of economic imperatives, green values, and a desire for a simpler, less consumer-centric life. It seems to me that it's the economics that is really new – with oil pushing $140 a barrel, with global food shortages, and with globalization accelerating, Frugalism may simply be a new way of expressing a modest, middle-class discomfort in the wallet, while for others it's a more brutal slide into poverty. I also think it's an expression of anti-globalism, and a falling back on regionalism: when you can't afford to travel, or to ship things long distances, it encourages a natural set of parochial values.
Around the same time in the same newspaper I read an excellent article by Rupert Cornwell about the implications of the oil crisis on the American way of life. One thing that strikes visitors to the US is how much the car is king, and how a sprawling suburban life is fuelled by cheap gas and endless miles of highway. Car culture is real and engrained, and is central to everything from urban planning to entertainment. All this could crash pretty soon.
One thing did catch my eye – the new Frugalism. I say “new” Frugalism because the idea has been talked about a long time before now, in the context of Victorian industrial economics. But according to the Independent, today's Frugalist is motivated by more complex concerns. This is a blend of economic imperatives, green values, and a desire for a simpler, less consumer-centric life. It seems to me that it's the economics that is really new – with oil pushing $140 a barrel, with global food shortages, and with globalization accelerating, Frugalism may simply be a new way of expressing a modest, middle-class discomfort in the wallet, while for others it's a more brutal slide into poverty. I also think it's an expression of anti-globalism, and a falling back on regionalism: when you can't afford to travel, or to ship things long distances, it encourages a natural set of parochial values.
Around the same time in the same newspaper I read an excellent article by Rupert Cornwell about the implications of the oil crisis on the American way of life. One thing that strikes visitors to the US is how much the car is king, and how a sprawling suburban life is fuelled by cheap gas and endless miles of highway. Car culture is real and engrained, and is central to everything from urban planning to entertainment. All this could crash pretty soon.
Frugalism may just be another fad. But it could also be the first wave of post-consumerism.
Monday, June 16, 2008
London
I've just got back from a week in England, mostly for work but also a couple of days of visiting family in London and Newcastle.
I arrived in London on a gorgeous sunny day, and the city shone. I took a long walk from the Edgware Road through Hyde Park and over to the West End and Soho to see Ralph Fiennes in God of Carnage, then walked down Shaftsbury Avenue, through Trafalgar Square and down Whitehall to the river (Flickr updates to follow). The whole city was alive, vibrant. I loved it.
I arrived in London on a gorgeous sunny day, and the city shone. I took a long walk from the Edgware Road through Hyde Park and over to the West End and Soho to see Ralph Fiennes in God of Carnage, then walked down Shaftsbury Avenue, through Trafalgar Square and down Whitehall to the river (Flickr updates to follow). The whole city was alive, vibrant. I loved it.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Tuned Out
There was a time that I'd go listen to live music any chance I got -- these days, I rarely have the time or, I confess, the inclination. Sadly, this is more a reflection of my age than of the quality of music being played, but might also reflect the changing digital dynamics of the music biz.
I went to see the Raconteurs this week in Boston, a band dubbed oxymoronically an 'alternative supergroup'. An uneasy spotlight fell on Jack White, with the rest of the band playing second fiddle to his manic guitar. The Raconteurs new release has got a lot of press for the music, but just as much because it's a pressing on vinyl. For White, it's the tangibility of the object, in the sleeve, and the experience of playing a two-part story in music. White's music sensibilities hark back to the blues, punk, and an era when singles and albums formatted songs acoustically and physically. An album could hold about 30 minutes of music a side, a single maybe 7 minutes, and this condensed things. And albums tracks, the artwork, gave a new release an indentity that a CD or MP3 download can't get.
Before the Raconteurs, the last music I went to hear was Elvis Costello at a small club in Boston, where he played a long retrospective set interspersed with covers ranging from Bacharach to The Beatles. He's just released a new album, Momofuku, that is also on vinyl, but even the CD has a "side one and side two" listing of the tracks, which he recorded in a low-fi studio in a couple of weeks.
Costello and White are looking back for a lot of reasons, and I suspect one of them is a hankering for a time when music mattered, especially live music. The digital economics of the music industry are a mess, but it's also turned music into an solitary ibudded experience. It's a shame, because seeing White belt-out guitar solos, hearing Costello scream The Beatles' "Hey Bulldog", it's what it's all about.
I went to see the Raconteurs this week in Boston, a band dubbed oxymoronically an 'alternative supergroup'. An uneasy spotlight fell on Jack White, with the rest of the band playing second fiddle to his manic guitar. The Raconteurs new release has got a lot of press for the music, but just as much because it's a pressing on vinyl. For White, it's the tangibility of the object, in the sleeve, and the experience of playing a two-part story in music. White's music sensibilities hark back to the blues, punk, and an era when singles and albums formatted songs acoustically and physically. An album could hold about 30 minutes of music a side, a single maybe 7 minutes, and this condensed things. And albums tracks, the artwork, gave a new release an indentity that a CD or MP3 download can't get.
Before the Raconteurs, the last music I went to hear was Elvis Costello at a small club in Boston, where he played a long retrospective set interspersed with covers ranging from Bacharach to The Beatles. He's just released a new album, Momofuku, that is also on vinyl, but even the CD has a "side one and side two" listing of the tracks, which he recorded in a low-fi studio in a couple of weeks.
Costello and White are looking back for a lot of reasons, and I suspect one of them is a hankering for a time when music mattered, especially live music. The digital economics of the music industry are a mess, but it's also turned music into an solitary ibudded experience. It's a shame, because seeing White belt-out guitar solos, hearing Costello scream The Beatles' "Hey Bulldog", it's what it's all about.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
LSD RIP
You may not have heard of Albert Hoffmann, but without him Lennon & McCartney would never have written Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Timothy Leary would be unknown, and a lot of bad art and incomprehensible poetry would never have seen the light of day.
Hoffmann was the chemist who first synthesised LSD, in 1943, and died this week at age 102, suggesting acid may not have the life-threatening impact we'd imagined. He didn't just discover the drug, he was also the first to (accidentally) ingest it. The resulting trip led him to believe that acid could help with psychosis and an understanding of how the brain works, all of which echoed Freud's earlier hopes about cocaine. Both got it exactly wrong, but if you've ever read Aldous Huxley's Doors of Perception or anything about Synesthesia you wonder about how much the world you and I perceive is anything like the world others see, hear, or smell, and how fluctuating and subjective things are.
Hoffmann was the chemist who first synthesised LSD, in 1943, and died this week at age 102, suggesting acid may not have the life-threatening impact we'd imagined. He didn't just discover the drug, he was also the first to (accidentally) ingest it. The resulting trip led him to believe that acid could help with psychosis and an understanding of how the brain works, all of which echoed Freud's earlier hopes about cocaine. Both got it exactly wrong, but if you've ever read Aldous Huxley's Doors of Perception or anything about Synesthesia you wonder about how much the world you and I perceive is anything like the world others see, hear, or smell, and how fluctuating and subjective things are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)