The Paris Review Interviews

If you haven't discovered them, I highly recommend a visit to the Paris Review archive of interviews.

This New York-based quarterly began interviewing authors and poets in 1953 (EM Forster was first) and they have amassed a trove of fascinating and irreplaceable records. I've been reading them quite systematically, going backwards from the 2000s and hugely enjoying not only the theoretical or critical or historical reflections, but also their descriptions of how and when they write: pen or computer, morning or evening, quiet place or town square; how many words a day, how often, how methodically etc. All different, but some common themes emerge: most writers born pre-1970 write first in longhand, eschewing even the typewriter, let alone the word processor. Nearly all say writing requires and rewards solitude. Nearly all say it's not easy. In fact Thomas Mann said “a writer is a person for whom writing is more difficult than it is for other people.” This seems to be true.`

My favourites so far: Marilynne Robinson (predictably), Stephen King (surprisingly), Salmon Rushdie, and Martin Amis. These last three are certainly not favourite authors of mine, but their interviews are frank, funny, engaging, and profitable. Others come across as pompous or pretentious (Umberto Eco) and others exactly as one might have expected having read their books (E Annie Proulx, Hunter S Thompson).

Ironically, in that very first interview, EM Forster said “I am more interested in works than in authors.” Roland Barthes announced the death of the author and ushered in the reader as the central figure of literature, but of late we (as readers) have shown an insatiable interest in biography, memoir, diary and other kinds of life writing. We are intrigued by the celebrity author as well as by the recluse, and the book tour is these days the inevitable corollary of the book.

More than a glimpse of the private lives of authors, these interviews contain the reflections of successful practitioners of literature on their craft and the state of creativity more broadly. Again, they're all different, but they all offer first hand accounts of their long-hand grapple with the difficulties of writing - difficulties which non-writers don't seem to face, and which seem to constitute both writing's cost and its gift. These interviews should be prized not as pontifications by those with pretensions to knowledge, but as dispatches from the frontline of creativity.

Love bade me welcome

I haven't given my pet poets much of an airing in this space, so what about some George Herbert? He is, as AS Byatt remarked here, “perfect and unexpected.” Here's one of his more perfect poems, “Love (III).” 

Love bade me welcome: yet my soul drew back,
Guilty of dust and sin.
But quick-ey'd Love, observing me grow slack,
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning,
If I lack'd anything.

A guest, I answer'd, worthy to be here:
Love said, You shall be he.
I the unkind, ungrateful? Ah my dear,
I cannot look on thee.
Love took my hand, and smiling did reply,
Who made the eyes but I?

Truth Lord, but I have marr'd them: let my shame
Go where it doth deserve.
And know you not, says Love, who bore the blame?
My dear, then I will serve.
You must sit down, says Love, and taste my meat:
So I did sit and eat.

The Author

My book (!) is out.  It represents roughly a decade of my life, though not, I should add, a decade of work. I started my PhD in 2000, finished it in 2005, submitted a revised version to Ashgate in I think 2007, and completed the final revisions early this year.  So, with a publication date of November 2010, my book (!!) really began ten years ago.

The book is called Verse and Poetics in George Herbert and John Donne. It's about two seventeenth-century poets and their commitment to poetry as a culturally and theologically privileged mode of expression. If you want to read more about it, the best place is the publisher's own website, though personally I find it more thrilling to view it on Amazon.

PS An e-version was also published, but an online search suggests that the author of the ebook is not in fact me but someone called (much more excitingly) Cecilie Vindal Odegaard. I assume this is someone who works for Ashgate, but I'm also thinking seriously about assuming it as my own nom de plume.

Regarding Harry

Without intending to, I've found myself rereading the Harry Potter books - knee deep in the goblet of fire before I know what I'm about. This time around, I admit the justice of many of the criticisms. The prose is poor - plain and clunky, a simple stitching together of worn-out phrases and predictable structures. While the subject is magic, there is a distinct lack of magic in the atmosphere of the books. There is no beauty, nothing lyrical, and, strangely, no sense of wonder to be found anywhere. Beautiful or wondrous things are described baldly or hyperbolically, leaving little room for mystery. And in the latter books, murky adolescence robs them of much of their childish charm.

However, the spell these books cast is undeniable. Though short on wonder, they have comedy, invention, and affection in abundance, and each book contains at least one pearl of wisdom or moral courage that lifts the books from entertainment to something more. Rowling has a fine comic sense, and is adept at creating humourous situations and even one-liners without much effort. She is also a skilled sketcher of characters. Harry himself can be a bit transparent, but Ron and Hermione are both vividly imagined and highly likeable, to say nothing of Arthur Weasley, Remus Lupin, Uncle Vernon, Neville Longbottom and a host of others. Perhaps the greatest strength of the books is the meticulous and successful plotting, within each book and across the seven, and this is aided by Rowling's intuitive use of symbols and emblems that have deep roots in the western imagination. Her cauldron cleverly mixes the staples of swords, dragons, castles, and serpents with coinages like quidditch, horcruxes, howlers, and pensieves. Most of all, she has pitted good and evil against each other and made unambiguous moral gestures in the books that make them deeply satisfying, despite their lack of poetry.  

Books I wish I'd read in 2010

As the end of the year draws nigh, it's time for one of those wrap-up end-of-year best-of posts, but you might have noticed that I haven't really read any books that came out this year (as far as I can remember) so I'm ill-qualified to comment on what was best or worst in the offerings of the past twelve months. Instead, here's what I thought about reading, talked about as though I'd read, picked up idly in bookshops, read good reviews of, or otherwise toyed with:

Freedom, by Jonathan Franzen
The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, by Rebecca Skloot
Censoring an Iranian Love Story, by Shahriar Mandanipour
All the Devils are Here: the hidden history of the financial crisis, by Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera
How Mumbo-Jumbo conquered the world, by Francis Wheen
At Home, by Bill Bryson
A Tiny Bit Marvellous, by Dawn French

Any other suggestions?