A Nice Cup of Tea in Bed and a Good Book

I fell downstairs on Monday.  Foolishly rather than dramatically.  Nothing broke, so the anti-osteoporosis pills are working.  Just a swollen ankle and a bruise or two. I saw a large silver moon with eyes open and shut for ten minutes.  Some people see stars, I see the moon.  My intention had been to make a cup of tea in bed for The Poet, but as it turned out, or as my sorry psyche made it turn out, he had to put me back in bed and make me a cup of tea.  Which is what he usually does (make me a cup of tea, not put me back in bed).  I got the fuss of being a fallen woman and the tea, plus credit for the virtuous intention that set it all in motion.  The  Poet is endlessly patient.  A friend explained to me once that the only reason for getting married was to get a cup of tea in bed in the morning.  I hadn't the heart to point out that only 50% of couples get tea, the other 50% have to make it.

Then on Tuesday morning there was a piece about the new Pynchon novel on the Today programme.  It's an event, a new Pynchon, so the morning news magazine couldn't ignore it, but let's not get serious about books.  They had Louise Doughty tell Ian Rankin and anyone else who might have been thinking of buying the book that Pynchon's works 'aren't good reads'.  No, and they're rubbish for washing your hair, The Poet muttered.  The requirement for a good, or even an interesting book is not that it should be a good read. 

A couple of weeks ago Louise Doughty wrote a blog about my anti creative-writing course blog (see How to Get Rich and Famous Without Writing A Bestseller below).  She defended writing courses by saying 'not everyone can be James Joyce'.  Evidently, being James Joyce or Thomas Pynchon and asking readers to make an effort is to be frowned on. Somehow it's more democratic to be a mediocre writer.  We should actually train people to produce a good read.  A good read is a sorry phrase which means unambitious, and not requiring any mental effort.  The opposite isn't a bad read, but a demanding read.  Why aren't we celebrating difficulty and complexity, instead of having books dismissed on those grounds and potential readers warned against them?  Have we lost the notion of writers as anything more than producers of page turners to pass the time?  It's pathetic.  It's deadly, actually, like that phrase people use to put down bright children: you're too clever by half.  We dislike being made to think or play along with a playful or intriguing writer.  It's not that writers like Pynchon are beyond criticism - some of them are terrible, pretentious, ridiculous - but mostly they are trying to do something not just churning out what the market wants.  I dare say many people enjoy reading good reads and writing them,too, but to dismiss serious writing as not being a good read won't bloody do.

Comments

[Jenny Diski]

Thank you both. Now I've introduced you to each other, maybe you could continue fine wines and signifier v signified debate conversation by email?

[Mike Tintner]

Ann, You're quite right that there are different markets involved here. And yes, there are people who love words and language and wordplay, per se, and always will.

I think I'm right though, that the literary market will become ever smaller.

Most people, whether they know it or not, don't want words or any kind of signs per se. They want as direct a contact with reality as possible - (with the signified/ subject, if you like, rather than any particular kind of sign) - and they gravitate rapidly to whatever media give it to them.

The literary and linguistically-inclined have looked down on all such trends for a long time - regarding themselves as more intelligent in their tastes. (That sort of attitude underlay some of Jenny's remarks). In fact, it's quite the reverse. The better you can see (or otherwise sense) directly what you are talking about, the more intelligent (and emotional) you are likely to be on that subject.

We're moving from a literate to a multimediate era of civilization - one of the most momentous changes in history. In the old days it was OK to be complex and difficult, and give armies of critics and academics something to do, and endlessly reread. Nowadays, we don't have time for all that shit - and if you doubt it's shit, look at literary academe. Make it simple, make it clear, and don't piss about. There's a lot of information out there to get through.

But yes, there will always be fine-wine and fine-word-tasting societies - just ever more exclusive. (Fine by me, "ominous" to you?)

[Ann Ominous]

Mike, you sound awfully like a punter extolling the utter rightness of screwcap plonk while sneering at the very concept of fine wines...not quite realizing that these opposing tastes represent two distinctly different markets. Could anyone ever expect these two groups to agree, philosophically or otherwise? It only behooves the canny bottler/publisher to respect the schism and target appropriately. The overpopulation of the planet assures a large enough demographic at both ends, dear.

[Mike Tintner]

Nah, you're all literary wankers. Of course, you should apologize (profusely) if your prose or fiction are complex and difficult. Of course, you should be as simple and accessible as tv, or a bullet-pointed webpage, so we can cut to the good bits or the meat. Life's too short.

Enter the fabulous new world of multimedia. Or die a horrible death, like poetry. Tom Wolfe has a great section in "Hooking Up" on how poetry similarly decided to be difficult and inaccessible around the 1880's/1890's with predictable results. Arrgh. Never presume on the reader's patience.

But I liked the tale of arachnophobia, and "sisyphusing" is what I had oft thought, but ne'er so well experessed.

[Steven Augustine]

Books these days are meant to be ingratiating, unobtrusive little things...compliant and apologetic for not being televisions. The business imperative to 'give the people what they want' blends satanically well with The People's lazy self-regard, forming a closed system from within which 'difficult' (grownup) books appear bossy and rude. Even a reasonably opinionated, well-informed conversationalist is considered bossy and rude by default, these days. I write all this aware of the fact that I am considered a miserable bastard by many acquaintances whose book shelves I can't quite bear to look at.

[bumpkin]

Someone recently said that a good book is like sheet music in the days before recordings. Music lovers made their own versions, at home, of a composer's work. Readers make their own versions, at home, of a writer's work. If it's not a "good read" I suggest it's the reader's fault, not the writer's. Beckett's novels are not "a good read" but they are amazing and compelling. Good luck with the bumps & bruises; I hope the tea helps.