Walter Mason on The Memory of Salt by Alice Melike Ülgezer

memory of saltThe Memory of Salt
Alice Melike Ülgezer
Giramondo
9781920882907
August 2012 (buy)

reviewed by Walter Mason

One so rarely encounters God in modern Australian literature that it comes as a shock to see the word, especially so early on Alice Melike Ülgezer’s The Memory of Salt, an extraordinarily lyrical and original novel. The novel’s narrator, Ali, hears the name of God at the same time as she encounters a pointless and unexpected death. She realises that it is this call to the divine that has both swept her up in a mystical, though unconventional, devotion that comes close to defining her, and made her feel alien in a culture to which she has some claim.

Ali is an alien trapped between two different cultures. It is not just the conventional ethnic division, but the more profound divisions that fill this novel: divisions between secularism and faith, music and science, rationality and insanity. Her father, a carefree Turkish traveller, impresses her with his sense of freedom and his complete lack of attachment to the material realities of work, accommodation and even national belonging.

The Memory of Salt tells the story of her parents’ love affair, an ill-advised and doomed thing between a temporarily distracted middle-class Australian girl and a peripatetic Turkish Sufi. Theirs is a physically charged, intensely sexual attraction, and the intensity of their intentionally exotic love is played out in forbidden couplings in foreign hotel rooms, the call to prayer ringing in their ears as they fuck, smoke and doggedly ignore the impossibility of any kind of future together. Sex, too, is charged with a quasi-religious quality:

While they made love her body became a hymn calling out through the shadows and the fruit, through the streets and the lights… And as she spirited herself like an incantation across the city she became higher and higher until all the voices of all the children, and all the city lights were one.

The child of this mystical union, Ali, returns to Turkey to attempt to rescue her hopelessly stoned father, and while there she is drawn into the embrace of his family’s singular religion. A newly-pious aunt convinces her that this return to her ancestral religion is an act of grace and an exercise in destiny, and she urges the bookish and clever girl to read the Masnawi, the long, mystical poem of Rumi that addresses God as a lover and the ultimate source of being.

This is a rich and delicious novel. It brings to life modern Turkish Sufi culture in a unique and unexpected way, and is, in its own way, a particularly Australian literary artefact, blending cultures and experiences in a way that only this country and culture would seem to allow. While it demands to be read closely and attentively, it rewards with its sad and constantly surprising story. I think it marks a fascinating and important contribution to Australian literary culture, and shines some light on a world I have rarely encountered in books.

Disclaimer: I must declare that this book is published by Giramondo, a publishing house headed up by my erstwhile academic supervisor Ivor Indyk. And while I have complete faith in his academic advice, we don’t always see eye to eye in matters literary. In this case, however, I have been won over by the writing of Alice Melike Ülgezer, an author I am yet to meet, and this review represents my honest and uninfluenced opinion.

walter3Walter Mason is a travel writer and speaker with a special interest in spirituality. His first book, Destination Saigon, was published by Allen & Unwin in 2010 to great critical acclaim. Walter has also featured in Vietnamese language broadcasts, and articles by and about him have run in the Vietnam Airlines in-flight magazine and other popular magazines in Vietnam. His book is sold in pirated editions in the backpacker districts of Saigon and Hanoi, where he is assured it’s a popular item. destsaigonDestination Saigon was named by the Sydney Morning Herald as one of the Ten Best Travel Books of 2010.

Writing from the ‘global south’: Dallas Angguish on Southpaw Issue 1

Southpaw
Issue 1, December 2011
ISSN 1839-7867
http://southpawjournal.com/

Reviewed by Dallas Angguish

Southpaw describes itself as ‘a journal of writing from the global south’. This notion of the global south draws on and intersects with the recent critique in scholarly circles of the Northern hemisphere bias in critical theory, cultural studies (especially literature and film studies), social theory and the academy in general. One of the first, and most potent, elucidations of this bias appears in Raewyn Connell’s book Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science. In Southern Theory, Connell starts with a critique of Northern hemisphere sociology then relates social thought from cultures and theorists in the southern hemisphere which, by highlighting the biases and blindnesses of much north-oriented social (and cultural) theory, provides fresh and sometimes challenging insights.

Southpaw’s editors (Alison Caddick and Chris Beach) have taken up the notion of a uniquely southern hemisphere worldview or ‘position’ and applied it to the domain of writing. This is unique in itself although not unexpected. Much of the theory and criticism coming out of the southern hemisphere has been about literature. The theme for Southpaw’s first issue is ‘displacement’, a potent idea that draws on postcolonial theory and writing on colonialism, globalisation and the spectre of mass population displacement (refugees) due to the twin horrors of northern hemisphere driven (and funded) war and ecological catastrophe.

The journal includes a diverse range of writing (poetry, fiction, essays etc.) from an even more diverse cohort of writers. Issue One has contributions from and/or about many places in the global south: Australia, India, New Zealand, Oceania, South Africa, South America and Asia. The writers are all positioned in the global south either geographically or theoretically. Many are members of the cultural and ethnic diasporas that are a reality of life below the equator.

Ali Jimale Ahmed’s poetry opens the issue and provides perceptive reflections on the irreality or constructed nature of the borders between north and south. Ahmed elucidates this notion when he writes that a ‘poetic swoon’ provokes a reorientation to the south which may or may not be a return to another (or an ‘other’) way of seeing things. Paula Tavares’ suite of poems ‘Mukai (Woman)’ engages with the notion of displacement in a more bodily sense. These poems reflect beautifully on the displacement of being a woman in a masculinist world. Tavares’ poems suggest that the female body provides links (umbilical cords) to the earth and the past that might help to counter this displacement. Although this idea might evoke (for a certain type of scholarly northern mind) the problematic of essentialist ways of seeing the body, it also suggests that perhaps there is a way of linking the body to ecology and history that northern theory has missed.

Although the poetry and fiction contained in this issue are all of a high standard, the strengths of Southpaw are mainly in its essays and non-fiction. For me, Martin Plowman’s essay ‘Traveller’s Guide to High Strangeness’ is among the best contributions to this issue. In this perfectly tuned essay, Plowman relates his ongoing fascination with ufologists (UFO boffins) and UFOs as it plays out in a journey to South America. Plowman uses the term ‘high strangeness’ to describe the conspiracy-filled, paranoid and intriguing world of ufology. The term comes from ufology itself and means ‘total uncertainty, a complete lack of meaning.’ Plowman’s essay is expertly written, engaging, informative and humorous.

‘Traveller’s Guide to High Strangeness’ also provides a moment of relief to the other longer contributions which are, in many cases, somewhat heavy. Many of the pieces are negatively skewed encounters with displacement (and the southern hemisphere perspective). This is not to say these other works are not well written. I just found that the journal did not quite balance out the tensions between light and dark, pain and pleasure, in the way that I prefer.

A really good journal should provide the reader with a challenging and informative but also enjoyable reading experience. For me, the profit of reading is as much about enjoyment as it is about illumination. For what is the point of illumination if it brings us only sadness and no pleasure? Not that Southpaw is a total downer. The journal has definite highs (such as Plowman’s essay and the poetry of Tavares), but one definitely leaves the issue feeling pessimistic. There is not enough exploration into the positive possibilities that might be found in displacement. But that is a minor weakness and only my opinion.

Overall, Southpaw is a commendable journal. It’s ideological (and ethical) orientation is worthy. Certainly, the works included in this issue deserve the space the journal has given them. Many of the works deserve wider circulation. I hope, therefore, that the journal is taken up by as broad a readership as possible.

Dallas Angguish is a writer and editor based in Northern NSW. He has been published in a number of journals including TEXTLodestar QuarterlyRetort MagazineBukker Tillibul and Polari Journal (of which he is also the editor). Dallas’ work has appeared in the anthologies Bend, Don’t Shatter (2004), Dumped (2000 and US edition 2002) and When You’re a Boy (2011). A collection of his short works, Anywhere But Here, was published in 2006 and his collection of travel tales, America Divine: Travels in the Hidden South, was published by Phosphor Books in 2011. Dallas is also an Associate Lecturer in Cultural Studies and Writing at Southern Cross University. For more info: www.dallasangguish.com

Guest post: Troy Martin on Ian McEwan’s Sweet Tooth

Jonathan Cape (Random House)
9780224097383
September 2012 (buy paperback, ebook)

reviewed by Troy Martin

This isn’t a spy drama. Ian McEwan’s Sweet Tooth is more than a novel of London or the 1970s. It’s bound with literary references, but you do not need a companion to English literature to enjoy this novel. That is the most startling effect of Sweet Tooth; it’s a serious read, while being a fun read. That consistent desire of the novelist: to be taken seriously, while also being a joy to read, while not being Dan Brown. Our narrator Serena Frome is living multiple lives. A daughter, a sister, a worker, a lover: ‘Civilisation threatened by nuclear war, and I am brooding about a stranger who caressed my palm with his thumb. Monstrous solipsism’.

In all my love for McEwan’s work, he does two things better than most writers: tension (see Child in Time) and sex (think the library scene in Atonement or the newlyweds in On Chesil Beach). Serena—her vocabulary and perception—is the most fascinating aspect of Sweet Tooth. Serena feels like our host, with liberties and no desire to hide from her faults. As a low level officer with MI5, with just a third in Mathematics from Cambridge, she is given a task: convince a promising writer to accept that the Freedom International Foundation will pay to publish his work. Of course, a certain type of work is required, one that confirms the supreme nature of capitalism, one that confirms the status quo. This status quo is elegantly layered in the novel, one of brownouts and blackouts to save electricity, unions as rebels with a cause, the constant real threat of terrorism (yes, it existed before 9/11!) and the soft Cold War that could turn hot. The 1970s wasn’t just sex, drugs and rock and roll.

The relationship between Serena and her mentor, Tony, is drawn with exquisite brush strokes. He is worn, literary, confrontational; intellectually challenging. Serena knows that this older married man may not deserve her love: ‘These clever, amoral, inventive, destructive men, single-minded, selfish, emotionally cool, coolly attractive’. But she does love him, and that captures McEwan’s style in one.

Tony parts mid-way through the novel and it’s Serena’s longing, not so much for him, but to know what happened to him, that co-exists with her second life. Her undercover life firstly as a critic then lover of the promising writer Tom Haley becomes the only life she cares for. That first life, Bishop father with a dwindling parish and a mother proud of her daughter’s low level Civil Service job, fades into the background.

McEwan has fun with literary giants and literary awards. The novel does not take itself too seriously, while being a serious novel of style and substance. Imagine, George Orwell ‘helped’ by the secret service to publish Animal Farm or Nineteen Eighty-Four! McEwan, a novelist first joining the insular literary world in the 1970s, why not write of this time again? Particularly when one can write like this.

‘I believed writers were paid to pretend, and where appropriate should make use of the real world, the one we all shared, to give plausibility to whatever they had made up.’

Troy Martin is reading 52 books in 52 weeks.

Dallas Angguish on Why Be Happy When You Could Be Normal? by Jeanette Winterson (guest review)

Jonathan Cape (Random House)
9780224093453, 2011
(buy hardcover, ebook

Review by Dallas Angguish

Why Be Happy When You Could Be Normal is the sometimes disturbing, sometimes tender and often funny story behind Jeanette Winterson’s debut novel Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit. Whereas Oranges was a semi-autobiographical novel, Why Be Happy is a memoir, a personal and reflective account of the author’s emotional and creative journey. The book is also very much about Winterson’s troubled relationship with her adoptive mother, an abusive religious zealot and ‘flamboyant depressive’, and the search for her birth mother.

I’d like to begin my review of Why Be Happy When You Could Be Normal with an excerpt from the recent discussion of it on the ABC’s First Tuesday Book Club:

Germaine Greer: …I think this book and Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit belongs to a strangely female genre which I call ‘the lying autobiography’ where you give an account which is self-serving in lots of ways…. She [Winterson] keeps telling you, ‘This may not have happened. This may be an invention.’

Greer doesn’t give specific examples of ‘lying autobiographies’ but mentions that she has been slandered in a number of memoirs. She goes on to imply that Winterson’ book—because the author is admitting up-front that she is writing about her own subjective experience, her own memories, her own interpretation of events and people—is therefore not only flawed but unethical. Though I believe that Greer is a genius and one of our greatest public intellectuals, I think she’s had a bit of a brain-snap there.

By labelling Why Be Happy as a ‘lying autobiography’, Greer has tarred Winterson’s book with the same brush as those mean-spirited books in which she’s been misrepresented. I commiserate with Greer; she has been the target of a lot of misinformation, and that must be painful and frustrating. However, in reading Why Be Happy through the prism of that experience rather than meeting it on its own terms, Greer is guilty of the very same lack of objectivity for which she critiqued Winterson.

The fact that Winterson explicitly foregrounds the subjective nature of memoir in Why Be Happy makes this book not only ethical but more ‘truthful’ than the slew of memoirs and autobiographies in the marketplace that pretend some kind of objective truth. Remember the controversies over James Frey’s A Million Little Pieces or Demidenko/Darville’s The Hand That Signed The Paper? Those books were seen as fraudulent precisely because they obscured the fact that they were not completely factual; because they pretended to be objectively true.

Why Be Happy, in contrast, is written with its cards on the table. It makes no claim to objective truth. Winterson makes it quite clear that she’s writing from her perspective, a perspective that cannot pretend objectivity; not because she rejects the truth but because objectivity is simply very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

I don’t have space in this review to outline the history of notions of truth and objectivity in philosophy, nor the voluminous body of evidence about the unreliability of memory and perception coming out of psychology. So let me be a little naughty and reduce and blend the whole Western philosophical canon—and the body of knowledge of modern neuropsychology—into a single (rather snooty) paragraph so that we’re all on the same page:

The thing we call truth is unattainable and will not be agreed to by everyone concerned. We all perceive, experience and remember events uniquely. Memory is known to be very unreliable. More to the point, we cannot directly touch or experience reality (or truth); we can only experience reality through the filter of our perception, which is always already distorted. Memories are subjective reflections of an already distorted perception. Therefore, what we call truth is not absolute but is merely a convention. Having said that, we need to respect and value shared experience and be careful not to deny the truth that others claim, especially if they belong to a marginalised group. Nor should we make no attempt at all to find those facts that can be supported by hard evidence.

Given the above, I think that Why Be Happy, precisely because it foregrounds the slippery nature of memory and truth, is anything but unethical. In fact, it’s one of the best examples of the autobiographical/memoir genre to come out in a long while. I say this not just because Winterson is open about the subjective nature of her account but also because it is so well written. Take as an example her opening reflections on her adoptive mother:

When my mother was angry with me, which was often, she said, ‘The Devil led us to the wrong crib.’

The image of Satan taking time off from the Cold War and McCarthyism to visit Manchester in 1960—purpose of visit: to deceive Mrs Winterson—has a flamboyant theatricality to it. She was a flamboyant depressive; a woman who kept a revolver in the duster drawer, and the bullets in a tin of Pledge. A woman who stayed up all night baking cakes to avoid sleeping in the same bed as my father. A woman with a prolapse, a thyroid condition, an enlarged heart, an ulcerated leg that never healed, and two sets of false teethmatt for everyday, and a pearlised set for ‘best’.

Clearly, well written though it is, Winterson’s treatment of her mother in this passage is not kind. In a way, she is constructing a monster. The list of Mrs Winterson’s monstrous (or abject) characteristics is quite long. The prolapse, ulcerated leg and ‘two sets of false teeth’ are more than enough to make this reader feel a bit queasy.

This horror movie picture of Mrs Winterson seems designed to undermine any impulse we might have towards sympathy. But to the author, Mrs Winterson is a monster and it seems important to her that we get that strongly and right up front. And we do.

Mrs Winterson is not nice. This is a person who beat her daughter, locked her in a ‘coal hole’, indoctrinated her with fanatical religious beliefs and left her locked outside all night while at the same time masqueraded as a good mother by ensuring that her daughter was always well dressed and well behaved. That sounds like a monster to me. But, all monsters have another side.

Thus I come to my only criticism of Why Be Happy. We only see a small part of that other side of Mrs Winterson so that sometimes she seems not quite fully fleshed out. She looms large, but as a spectre does, not as a human being. This is perhaps because she isn’t a real person. She’s the embodiment of Winterson’s feelings of fear, loneliness and abandonment.

I don’t expect Winterson to give a pitch-perfect rendering of her mother. That’s not quite possible working from memory and perception. But I cannot believe that Mrs Winterson struggled so little with her demons or with the way she treated her child. I wanted to see that struggle discussed more. Perhaps I’m naïve, perhaps Mrs Winterson rarely, if ever, struggled with her darkness. Perhaps she slept blissfully each and every night free of any sense of remorse or guilt. Perhaps she really was a monster. Perhaps Winterson simply didn’t witness or doesn’t remember any such struggle.

To write about this kind of relationship, to face ones darkest memories and most fraught feelings and place them on the page for all to see, takes a lot of courage. That’s the sense I get having finished the book, that the author is courageous and open-hearted.

Far from being a ‘lying autobiography’, Why Be Happy When You Could Be Normal is a book that shares with its reader the very tender moments of the author’s early life in a moving and engaging way. It’s also a good example of how writing an autobiography challenges memoirists to question their memories and to acknowledge the perhaps irreducible gap between what we remember, what we feel, and what may or may not have happened according to the facts. In facing that unavoidable gap, Winterson has produced not only a very fine book but an honest one as well.

Dallas Angguish is a writer and editor based in Northern NSW. He has been published in a number of journals including TEXTLodestar QuarterlyRetort MagazineBukker Tillibul and Polari Journal (of which he is also the editor). Dallas’ work has appeared in the anthologies Bend, Don’t Shatter (2004), Dumped (2000 and US edition 2002) and When You’re a Boy (2011). A collection of his short works, Anywhere But Here, was published in 2006 and his collection of travel tales, America Divine: Travels in the Hidden South, was published by Phosphor Books in 2011. Dallas is also an Associate Lecturer in Cultural Studies and Writing at Southern Cross University. For more info: www.dallasangguish.com

In May, Jeanette Winterson will be appearing at the 2012 Sydney Writers’ Festival and at the Wheeler Centre in Melbourne.

North jazz: Kent MacCarter talks to Johan Harstad about Buzz Aldrin: What Happened to You in All the Confusion? (guest post)

Buzz Aldrin, What Happened to You in All the Confusion?
UWA Press, Australia
9781742582634 (buy paperback)

by Kent MacCarter

The concert in which Norwegian novelist Johan Harstad can eat a sandwich, drink a watermelon granita and adroitly conduct an interview without any noticeable pauses for gulping or chewing is an impressive orchestration. Amid my questions and his replies, I didn’t manage a bite. My cappuccino was thankfully sipped to its foam curtsey before Harstad’s fair complexion and amiable countenance loped through the front entry of Pellegrini’s Espresso Bar in downtown Melbourne. The vowels of his salutation cambered underneath their fellow consonants, complementing his locks of unkempt hair wedged underneath a cap. Such was his accent to my ear. This was Harstad’s second full day in Melbourne, rounding out his first week in Australia.

The setting and timeline for much of Harstad’s Buzz is on the Faroe Islands, a treeless archipelago nation of 18 islands in the North Sea, its calendar filled with downpours. It was not an overtly rainy afternoon in Victoria, unlike those that typify such a Faroese deluge, but it had been a wan morning with a leisurely climactic drool. He was comfortable. I was hungry. We were both on time.

Zipped into a florid hoodie, Harstad was the single Iced Vovo in this Tim Tam box of a classic espresso bar. We snagged two stools by the bean grinder and the tamp bin. Sisto Malaspina, co-founder of Pellegrini’s, bounded up to us with his defining smile and cravat, and two salami and cheese sandwiches.

The number two is an important digit in Buzz Aldrin, What Happened to You in All the Confusion?, Harstad’s debut novel from 2006 which has recently been translated into English and published in Australia by UWA Press. What you take away from the book will be enough fuel for a week’s worth of lunches; each portion longer than a Kraftwerk song, each bite a calculated ho-hum from one of the more well-sculpted anti-heroes in the past thirty years, whether you like that character’s ditty, scant ambitions or not.

Kent MacCarter: I wanted to start by diving right at Buzz’s main antagonist/protagonist, Mattias. His characterisation never overwhelms or underwhelms—he simply ‘whelms’ for 460 pages, experiencing what comes his way in a controlled, pensive mind-meld. He is what I imagine the anti-Tyler Durden (Fight Club) would be like. Being ‘number one’ in anything is never a goal for him, but would Mattias settle for being number 222 instead of two?

Johan Harstad

Johan Harstad: Good question. I think that what’s important for him is to—okay, this is the reason I think he would have trouble being number 222: what Mattias believes in is that being number two—the runner up—will do pretty much the same job, achieve the same results as being number one, except that he doesn’t have to take any blame or field any glory. So he’s sort of like the perfect communist in a way.

I like where you’re going with this.

Because he’s so committed to whatever work he is involved in at any one time [at various points in the book it’s gardening, singing, passing out, carving wooden sheep]. He has a beautiful sense of community, at least in his desire to be a perfect cog in ‘the wheel’. So no, I don’t think he’d be content with being way in the back. The problem, of course, is that Mattias says all the time how he wants to be second best, wants to be invisible in society, but while in the Faroe Islands, and perhaps to some degree while in Norway, he demands considerable energy from everyone to enable him to be him.

I did find him to be a needy character.

Oh yes. Sometimes throughout the book, you really crave to give him a good bitchslap on the forehead!

Was it difficult to keep this character in a steady passive-aggressive tone? Without veering, say, too wildly or didactically in your story with unnecessary plot slipknots?

This being my first novel, I was very worried about how should I develop my character. I’ve never read any of those ‘how to write a novel’ books …

Probably a good thing.

 … Yes. But I did start out in considering what I thought a novelist should normally do before writing: figuring out the character’s personality, how he would react in certain situations. Then I thought, I’m not going to do that because I know myself and I have no idea how I’ll truly react in any given situation. That’s not how humans live, right? You could be a very calm person, gentle to everyone—a meet-a-cat-in-the-street-and-you’d-pet-it type person—then you get in a taxi and become an arsehole due to a small, nameless thing that happened prior. I already knew that Mattias is a character whose goal is to be second best. But I started with only that. I knew he’d go to different places and was going to meet other characters, but thereafter I just made it up how he reacted to scenes in the book along the way. That’s the best way, I think, to go about it.

Your birthday fastens you to the beginning of Gen Y. Buzz has a clear mooring in the zeitgeist of Gen X. And Mattias’s clear worship is at the feet of a Boomer generation pillar, Buzz Aldrin. Why did you choose these successive generations and how difficult was it couching sections of your book in each, then pitting them against one another, in a way?

I wasn’t actively thinking about this while writing, but I always felt like I grew up in an empty space between tiers, two generations I can cling to, at least on paper. I do feel as if I belong in the ’70s, but was not old enough to actually experience it. Another novel of mine primarily plays out in the mid ’80s. There was one critic of that book who could not move away from how I was only beginning to gain consciousness at the end of the ’80s, so how would I be able to describe those years? Strange! I was alive that whole decade. My upbringing is saturated with the ’80s. I felt this reviewer was robbing that whole decade from me. What? Should I be stuck only in the ’90s because I was a teenager then?

The ’90s are not cool as of yet. We’re still a bit embarrassed that we went for the whole grunge thing.

I understand. Having lived through the ’80s, I know it’s difficult to reach out and grab a part of it to make it believably yours to write about.

Yes. I’ve always enjoyed writing about people who were either younger or older than me. I do think that, apart from cultural references, generations are more alike than not. We all have the same joys and struggles, right? And indifferences, troubles.

The good, the bad and the execrable of America inundates Australia, significantly informing pop culture here. In writing Buzz—incorporating whole orbits of American pop culture references—how did you managed to moor it as a distinctly Norwegian text instead of succumbing to the onslaught of David Lynch, Allen Ginsberg or Miles Davis?

It wasn’t a concern at all. Here’s the strange thing: my strong opinion is that American English-speaking culture has saturated Norway so severely that it now feels indistinguishable. When reading an American book, I don’t reflect on the fact that it’s not Norwegian. Many Norwegians oppose this tide, of course, and try to minimise American influence. I used to be that way as well. You know, being a naïve teenage rebel and boycotting everything, especially this. It didn’t help that the US had a few horrible, horrible presidents fucking up the whole world.

Norway, at least per capita, historically had the greatest number of people migrating to the US between 1850 and 1950. There are more Norwegians living in the US today than there are in all of Norway. That’s made a strong connection between the two countries. It’s a standing joke in Norway that it’s the fifty-first state.

As Mould is to many! Now, Mattias is an anti-hero who stands out the way Holden Caulfield did; as the persona Nick Flynn portrays himself as in Another Bullshit Night in Suck City. How did the development of Mattias come to fit this mould? Did you start off with that in mind? Were you fifty pages in and simply felt like shunting him into that space?

I was very fortunate. Mattias arrived to me very much intact. Readymade. He was sort of a Happy Meal in that sense. When I was in middle school, I demanded a lot of attention. I took up a lot of space, I think … because, while I didn’t end up being a poet, I wanted to be a poet. And I thought I was a poet. So until I was aged twenty or so, I was strictly writing poetry, playing the role of ‘poet’ in my high school.

Were you the dark, brooding, back-of-the-café type? Two cigarettes in one hand?

Oh yeah! And, you know, just contemplating suicide from dawn till dusk. So I sucked a lot of attention out of my fellow students because there weren’t many writers—wannabe or otherwise—amongst the people I was hanging out with.

And this would have been in Stavanger, Norway, correct? The same hometown you give to Mattias.

That’s right. So, for the novel, I was thinking about these people I went to high school with and, as everybody experiences, you spend all these years together, but you never really know them. You may know their names, but you don’t talk to them.

All you see is a paintjob.

Exactly. They’re sort of the ‘extras’ in your life … even though that sounds horrible. Maybe they’re not invited to parties because they’re not cool, maybe they just don’t show up, a variety of reasons why they crop up in your life. So I was thinking of my old classmates—could it be that they didn’t want to spend time with me? That they had these perfect lives and didn’t want them to be ruined by someone as difficult or as outgoing as myself then? There must be many of these types—who’ve just been fooled by media that everyone wants to be on TV, wants to be a ‘World Idol’ or wants to be Paris Hilton: famous for being famous.

Yes, like some sort of manufactured assumption of how a person ‘is’. There’s identity and then there’s ‘identity prime’.

Absolutely. So that was the starting point. Buzz Aldrin as a character—and as a fulcrum of reference for Mattias—just dropped down from nowhere.

How fitting …

This novel was my third book. I’d written two short-story collections prior, and was struggling to settle on what should be my next project. I was not doing anything during this time—just sitting at home, watching daytime TV, which can be a brilliant thing to do when the timing’s right. I got hooked on a horrible Brazilian soap opera for half a year. As the drama played out on TV, everything suddenly—it just happened, as unsexy as that. Both Mattias the character and Buzz Aldrin as a motif fell into place.

I’m intrigued how the Faroe Islands came to be in the novel.

A long-time friend of mine’s mother is from the Faroe Islands, so I grew up with gripping stories about this place. I always wanted to do something about it, to incorporate those stories into … something. Most people even in Scandinavia don’t know much about the Faroe Islands. They might, sort of, half-way be able to point at them on a globe.

I also researched and discovered that hardly any contemporary novels were written from or about the Faroes, so it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to have a whole country for yourself! I could become a Julius Caesar of sorts, do this and that, rule this new land.

True. When I first came to Australia, I learned of a litany of island nations I’d never even heard of. I knew of the New Hebrides, but not as the sovereign nation of Vanuatu. I went out to explore that island nation and I remember thinking, Wow, there’s hardly anything written about this place?

Getting back to the anti-hero ‘device’—it’s hard to convincingly pull off, and you have. Chuck Palahniuk oftentimes fails at this. You field the obvious references to Murakami and Foer, impressive names, but do you ever feel pigeonholed by those associations?

I do a bit, but who I’m compared to is all over the place. In Germany, when Buzz first came out, the back cover said that ‘if John Irving was writing in Norwegian, he’d be writing like this’. I have to admit that I’m not a John Irving fan. In the Netherlands, I am the ‘Murakami of Norway’. When the book was published in New York, I was frequently compared to Foer.

And maybe, since you grew up in America—you probably know more about this than me, but I do feel it is, in a way, very American how there is always comparison to other stuff, a mix between this and that, X meets Y.

It is, I agree. It’s also a marketing thing. Publishers are keen, if not maniacal, about sticking a ‘name’ on the cover as a reference point because they’re in it to sell books, largely, and that’s fair enough …

Absolutely.

… but they can be a little shameless in their reference points. At times it’s an outright fabrication, the comparisons they concoct.

For instance, take Murakami. I’m a big Murakami fan, but I’m not sure if it’s solely a good thing to be compared to him because some of his books are terrific, but some are, well, not as good. I don’t consider Murakami to be a great artist, in a sense, of words. It’s not often that I read a Murakami novel and I want to cut out a sentence and make a poster of it. His sentences, his language is very basic, I think. While mine—since at least trying to be a poet when I was younger—are more interested in language than story. Story is always secondary to me.

What about sound? You mention that music was certainly a ‘guilty party’ in driving you to write; the lyrics of Depeche Mode etc., but what about the rhythms of what was ‘alternative’, then ‘indie’ music? Did that aesthetic sculpt some of your writing patterns? As you’re a drummer, I imagine this might have occurred?

Harstad at Penguin Plays Rough, Sydney

Yeah—well, the drumming is also a marketing thing. It started in Italy. Someone made a mistake on my press release, said I was a drummer, a rock musician. I do play in a sort of band, a punk band. And I don’t like punk music, so it’s a bit strange. We rehearse only if we’re doing shows, about once a year, usually in Germany. I’m the occasional drummer—no more so than people who sing in the shower should be known as vocalists.

This has been inflated to fuel your mystique?

Oh yeah. I’ve stopped fighting it because it stuck like a bad tattoo.

In this interview, I’m happy to dispel bullshit.

Thank you!

Is there music that truly does influence sound patterns in which you write? The book incorporates swathes of consciousness writing, and it has succinct phrasing interspersed that allows a reader to come up for air.

I’m always listening to music while writing, making elaborate playlists. What I actually listen to is strikingly different from the mood and music that ends up in my words. In Buzz, one of the characters only listens to the Cardigans, that Swedish band, and I think they’re a horrible band. An absolutely dreadful band. I used the Cardigans since I couldn’t really understand who was supposed to listen to them? It’s too prog for young kids and too poppy simple for, well—

For discerning tastes?

Yes. So the Cardigans are the perfect band for some halfway psychiatrist patient, which is Ennen, another character in my book. Now, Radiohead has been a very important band for me, especially in writing my short story collection, Ambulance, which has a cover design ‘sort of saying hello’ to OK Computer’s design. For every book I’ve written, there is one standout album that’s my mental soundtrack for its development. Oddly, for Buzz, it was Beck’s Sea Changes, which I listened to constantly. He had ended a relationship prior to recording it.

And you can tell?

It’s so bleak. It fit the Faroese climate. But it has the perfect mix of being really depressing but also having a small glimmer of hope in there. It’s a wonderful sadness. It drones on … which I guess could be, also, one reason for the text doing the same.

Harkening the Faroese climate, then. That small glimmer of hope, as you say, got me envisioning a part in the book where Mattias and his fellow ‘patients’ are driving around the countryside, the rains break, allowing sunrays their ‘15 minutes’, a small window amongst the downpour.

Exactly. The Icelandic band Sigur Rós was one I listened to a lot as well, speaking of droning on. While writing, I tried to adapt their approach to making music. Sigur Rós, for instance—I like how they do what they want, go on the road when they want. They return to Iceland to live. That’s that. Same with Radiohead. They’re allowing themselves to be a pain in the ass only when they need to.

Resuming to streams of consciousness in Buzz, I think it does take a reader a transition period to fully step into that.

Yes, it does.

I re-read the first 50 pages because—well, Buzz starts off with such a stream in its third sentence, wasting no time getting into gear. You’ve got two succinct sentences, then a giant solid paragraph across three pages. An Australian reviewer has referred to this form as ‘artless although effective’. I call that assessment naïve, but this form was clearly a calculated decision to use. Why did you? Jose Saramago’s Blindness, Janet Frame’s Faces in the Water and Mercè Rodoreda’s The Time of the Doves all use this form to gorgeous effect. What do you say to a comment like that?

Art … less? I think it’s just—I mean, what can you say? If you don’t like it you don’t like it. But I am always sceptical of people who say ‘this is art’ and ‘this is not art’, it all comes from pop culture reference. People look at Rothko paintings and say, ‘I could do that at home, just two colours’. But if you know the story about it, if you know—for instance, if you know how Rothko worked, the enormous amount of time he spent reflecting before doing … it’s the stream of consciousness thing again. Virginia Woolf did it. The ending of Ulysses incorporates it. Speaking about music again, jazz has always been interesting for me. You could say that the stream-of-consciousness method is my attempt at writing a Coltrane solo—okay, maybe not in the same tone, and not to say that I’m anywhere near as good as Coltrane!

Basically, I’m trying to defend myself against these notions. Andy Warhol, for instance. ‘Oh, it’s not art! It’s just a marketing campaign,’ people said. But it is art!

I don’t get a whiff, anywhere in this book, that it smells to be ‘written for commercial success’.

Mmm hmm.

I don’t get any sense of that.

I’ve now been travelling with this book for close to seven years. That’s quite a stream, too. When it was first published in Norway, I was pretty sure it’d be read by about three hundred people. Every time I wake up in a new hotel, I think, What am I doing here? This is crazy. I haven’t sold thousands and thousands of copies. Just to be able to travel with this kind of book that was, as you’ve said, not written to be a commercial success is amazing.

‘When they left in the morning, there was a fair chance they’d never come into harbour again, that they’d sink out there noiselessly and undramatically like a cat hiding away to die, and little notices would appear in the Russian papers in weeks that followed, sole proof that they ever existed.’

That’s an immaculate line.

I wanted to read that as example of an airtight line, as compared to those streams. Did you have any hurdles getting this book through a cadre of editors in Norway?

No, I didn’t. It could have been because my book before Buzz, the short-story collection, was written the same way; very long sentences and because I wanted—especially having a title like Ambulance.

So you’re hyper aware of the cadence?

Oh yes. I do constant re-writing as I sit and tap out rhythms: ‘this doesn’t work, what if I do that, what if I do this’. Many times I go back and think, OK now, I’ll have a full stop here, so I’ll actually have to take away this full stop there and do another comma over here …

Getting Buzz into UK English, then American English—they’re obviously not identical. Did you have any issues there with UWAP and Seven Stories Press?

I had virtually no contact with UWAP until it was printed in Australia, but I did work very closely with my American publisher. My translator of this book—a brilliant translator from England—translated it into British English … which was awkward for me because Scandinavians are more accustomed to American English. Much of the result in British English sounded so upper class!

And completely perpendicular to the book.

Yes! It made me feel distant throughout the novel, and my intent on wanting Mattias wanting him to be a ‘normal guy’—we couldn’t give him this stiff-upper-lip way of speaking! I was very happy when my American publisher said, ‘We’re going to have to Americanise this a bit.’

Really? This could be the first and last time I’ll ever here that from an artist. You were happy to have that done, to get back to your original starting point in the language.

I wanted to do that. Absolutely. When I read it, it’s much closer to how I thought it would sound.

Do you work directly with your translators? How much interaction did you have in getting your work into Hindi? Japanese?

Well, I—Hindi I didn’t have anything to do with, but usually I try to work as closely with my translators as possible, almost to the degree of moving in with them. I try to meet my translator prior to he or she starting so we can get to know each other, hang out, so they can begin to understand the way I talk and how to approach Buzz. You have to make sure they’re getting it, and they’ll usually send me a lot of questions by email. I collect all these various Q&As for those who might translate it in the future … who’ll get a fifty-page document with all those extant queries from previous translations. But my Russian translator, she never asked me a single question. We never met. I’m a bit freaked out about that because Russia and Norway are very different culturally, so there had to be many points in Buzz that did not compute well in Russian. When I finally got the Russian edition, each page was riddled with footnotes. That takes away much of the forward motion of the book. Very disjointing.

Speaking of disjointing, you’ve also written children’s literature and horror. Do you actively pursue strikingly different successive projects to keep things fresh?

It’s more just a random string of coincidences, because the YA horror story was commissioned work. It’s set on the Moon. People ask me what my obsession with the Moon is all about and I haven’t any such obsession. I’m not all that interested in the whole Moon thing. It just happened to seem like a good idea for both Buzz and this. I was asked, ‘Do you want to write a book for young adults?’ and—the original idea came from a festival in Stavanger during a year in which it was designated as the cultural capital of Norway. A publisher wanted a YA book to hand out to 10,000 kids.

I thought, That’s a brilliant idea. I’d love to do that. But I didn’t want to write about bullying, smoking or some teen anything topic, I wanted to scare them shitless. They had to give the final book to slightly older kids than originally planned. I went back to all the stuff I read in my early teens—Michael Crichton, Steven King—which I’d forgotten about completely. It probably forced me—like reading poetry, but from the opposite vantage—to be more aware of language-as-art when I went back to novels. YA novels are fast-paced and don’t require the art of cleverness in language.

Did you find it difficult to write succinctly for the YA book?

No, it was a great feeling … like doing something illegal. Writing a kids’ book was like watching porn in a way, because I didn’t have to think that much. All the energy goes into plotting, a completely new idea to me.

I want to ask about your writing of plays—a very different experience from writing novels, YA books, horror or porn. Did you find the restrictions of playwriting freeing or refreshing as compared to wide open spaces in novel writing?

It’s definitely not refreshing!

No?

Oh no! No, no. I’ve written four or five plays, all commissioned in different manners that I’ve felt obligated to agree to. Usually I am in a horrible mood while writing plays. For a long time I couldn’t figure out why that was so. I think it has to do with the fact that I am losing all the lines themselves, my control on them.

There’s no jazz in playwriting. It’s really more construction work than anything.

So my solution to the problem was that, while I was commissioned to do the work, I was never told what exactly to write about. So I’ve always been free to fill in that space. So one is a 500-page play that addresses genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia, very documentary-feel, done when I was an in-house playwright at the national theatre in Oslo. People who tend to go to theatres like this are middle-upper-class people and I just loved the idea of being able to lock them in the room for nine hours straight, confronting them to sit through Rwandan genocide and things they couldn’t care less about. It’s opening in 2013.

You mentioned previously that you started out as a poet. Did you intend to write plays and novels?

No. Never.

You cite Norwegian poet Jan Erik Vold as having a huge poetic influence on your writing. Are there poetic influences from way back in those brooding teenage days that you keep with you?

Oh yeah. Vold was really the starting point for me. Vold is very jazz. The all-time jazz greats are prominent in his work. Ginsburg and Creely are there too. I was introduced to the whole Beat Generation through Vold and it just blew my mind when I first read Howl.

I don’t read as much poetry as I should, but when I pick up a collection I know well, it opens my mind again. I think, This is why I’m writing, this is what I’d love to be doing. Unfortunately, I can’t write poetry I think anymore but I can still get all that energy from it. It rejuvenates me because, again, that was the reason for my writing at all. Poetry—the focus on each separate word and the potential strength of those words take me back to my source.

I’ve always found poetry to be the most efficient ways to write a thought, emotion, observation … but I typically get blank stares from novelists when I claim this.

No, no. I think that’s true. It’s the same with music. So many times I’ve thought, Why couldn’t I just be a great singer like Mattias? Instead of writing a 500-page novel, I could write a song that’s three minutes and thirty-two seconds. But I’m not able to do that at all. I feel bad when I read a great poem—there in ten, twenty lines is what I’ve been struggling with for ten years writing five books about.

Lastly, the book has been received well in the Faroe Islands. You go back about once a year?

Yes, it has. I go back at least once a year since Buzz came out. I was very relieved when they seemed to like it, especially when people told me I portrayed them—the Faroese culture—in a precise, accurate way. That was important. I didn’t want to glorify them, and I didn’t want to paint them as ‘the outsiders’ of the world.

When I first researched the area, luckily, there happened to be such a warehouse exactly as I had envisioned for the book. What has been a joy for me is that when I return, workers there tell me that tourists come by, asking if this is the factory that was in ‘that book’? That’s mind-blowing! I’ve always wanted to be a writer who moves people to travel or enchants them further into reading about a place. During brief moments when it seems as if I have succeed in doing that, I fall into severe delusions of grandeur.

Then I warp out of it.

Kent MacCarter is a writer and editor who lives in Melbourne with his wife, son and two cats. He’s the author of two poetry collections: In the Hungry Middle of Here (Transit Lounge Press, 2009) and Ribosome Spreadsheet (Picaro Press 2011). He is currently editing Joyful Strains: Expat Writers on Making Australia Home (Affirm Press, 2013), a non-fiction collection of diasporic, personal essays from authors who now live and write from Australia. MacCarter currently sits on the executive board of SPUNC: The Small Press Network and is active in Melbourne PEN. He is Managing Editor of Cordite Poetry Review.

Guest review: Gabriel Ng on Various Pets Alive and Dead by Marina Lewycka

Fig Tree (Penguin)
9781905490912
March 2012 (buy paperback)

review by Gabriel Ng

The title of Various Pets Alive and Dead might make you think it involves lots of cute animal stories and some kind of furry genocide. Instead, it’s a very political novel about the global financial crisis and the failure of the leftist ideals, played out through the intergenerational conflict of a family of hippy-commune escapees. This probably doesn’t sound like the most fertile ground for a comic novel, but its author, Marina Lewycka, milks the politics for as many laughs as possible, and even manages to throw in the odd ill-fated hamster or doomed family of rabbits.

Lewycka’s fourth novel, Various Pets Alive and Dead tells the story of Serge and Clara, and their mother Dora, who, along with her partner Marcus and the other quirky members of their collective, raised her children in an old country house on a healthy diet of free love, socialism and lentils.

Unbeknownst to his parents, Serge has chucked in his Maths PhD and is earning big bucks at a trading firm, FATCA (geddit?). Clara, on the other hand, has stuck to her family ideals and is working as a teacher at an underprivileged school in the same area she grew up, Doncaster (which is not, as I thought when I put my hand up for this book, a suburb of Melbourne of Westfield Shoppingtown fame, but an area in England’s de-industrialised north). Dora, meanwhile, reminisces about her radical youth and cares for her youngest child, Oolie-Anna, who has Down Syndrome.

In tone, it reminded me a lot of those other popular British comic writers, Nick Hornby and Sue Townsend, and it starts off with a lot of promise. Readable and contemporary, I thought I was in for something like Jonathan Franzen’s Freedom, not only because it engages with current world events, but because it seemed like it might tap into the rich literary fodder of family relationships: those deep, entwined bonds of love and resentment and dependence.

Unfortunately, Various Pets Alive and Dead doesn’t deliver on an emotional or a political level, because neither the characters nor the plots are engaging enough to sustain interest.

Deluded Serge pines for his sexy Ukrainian co-worker, Maroushka, and digs a hole for himself through illegal trading. Morose Clara pines for the sexy head teacher and tries to help one of the chavs from her class, who may or may not be a thief. The most likable character, Dora, considers a fling with a not-so-sexy counsellor and struggles with the idea of Oolie-Anna living independently. They all pick over the memories of life in the old manor, Solidarity Hall, mulling over mysterious parentage and the cause of a fire that eventually ended the whole social experiment.

The above describes almost all of the action of the novel, except for a few ridiculously unlikely occurrences (such as Serge’s case of mistaken identity). The mostly separate narratives don’t provide enough interaction between the main characters, and there is an absence of rising and falling action. Instead, each short chapter is often a frame for a social observation instead of dramatic development, making the plot feel episodic. The pace picks up towards the end, but there are other, more significant issues with the conclusion.

Similarly, the politics start out tantalisingly grey, but end up being disappointingly black and white.

Lewycka has obviously done a lot of research into the banking world, and her portrayal of a trading company is of an all-consuming, fast paced and cosmopolitan environment. Naturally, its denizens are obsessed with wealth, but you can see the appeal of it, especially for Serge, who is striking out against a materially deprived upbringing.

On the other hand, the portrait of life in Solidarity Hall and its socialism is affectionate, but heavy with an irony that suggests that Lewycka has limited respect for the hippie lifestyle. The youthful Dora and Marcus are only able to afford the run-down country manor thanks to one of their friend’s inheritance. The radicals are all conspicuously middle class and end up isolated from the coal mining community they hoped to inspire to revolution. The tenants of free love are either unattractive, as embodied in a perpetually pantless letch, or the cause of destructive secrets. And Serge’s love interest, Maroushka, the only character to live the reality of a communist government, has become a vicious proponent of the capitalist system.

There’s an interesting contrast between the members of the commune, who treat their cause with deadly seriousness but end up having little impact, and the bankers who act like their market manipulation is all a game while destroying people’s livelihoods.

Unfortunately, it all descends into easy demonisation of bankers, notalgia for idealism, and affirmation of middle class values. Characters that start out being morally ambiguous are flattened into bad-guy stereotypes and get their comeuppance. Bastards are slapped, bitches have their hair pulled, ill-gotten money is lost.

Worst of all, Lewycka seems to have no other ideas of how to resolve the three stories than to pair everyone off as if marriage or coupledom were some undeniable law of physics towards which all people eventually gravitate.

As the last quibble in a long line of quibbles, there aren’t even that many animals in it, alive or dead. I’m not saying I wanted a mountain of furry corpses, but it seems like the title was just tacked on to suck in animal lovers.

Look, it’s not all bad. It’s easy to read, a good airport or beach novel. The characters and settings are distinct and memorable. But its beta-blocker compulsion to keep things light and the extremely pat resolution mean that Various Pets Alive and Dead ends up being more Hugh Grant rom-com than Franzen-like book of the times.

Gabriel Ng is another Melbourne-based reader, writer and blogger. He blogs about books and whatever else takes his fancy on writeronwriter.wordpress.com, and has had short stories and poems rejected by OverlandWet Ink and numerous writing competitions. His first novel is due out in 2052.

Guest review: Andrew Wrathall on 1Q84 by Haruki Murakami

Harvill Secker, 2011
9781846555497
(hardcover, ebook: books 1 & 2book 3

by Andrew Wrathall

Aomame is warned: ‘Things are not what they seem,’ before she leaves a taxi on a backed-up freeway in Japan and walks down an emergency stairway, which causes her to slip out of 1984 and into the alternate reality of 1Q84. Aomame is a gym instructor, who has lived alone since leaving her family of doomsday proselytizers as a girl. She is also contracted to kill the husbands of women who’ve escaped domestic violence.

There’s also Tengo, a mathematics teacher at a cram school, whose love for literature leads him on a dubious path as a ghostwriter. While reading manuscripts for a literary award, Tengo is intrigued by the story Air Chrysalis, written by a strange young girl called Fuka-Eri. When asked to rewrite the story, the offer is far too compelling to turn down. The rewritten book wins the literary award and becomes a bestseller, with the media lapping-up the story of Fuka-Eri as a gifted 17-year-old emerging writer.

Fuka-Eri’s story is about mysterious beings known only as the Little People, who enter the world through the mouth of a dead goat. The metaphysical Little People are a manipulative entity with an unknown agenda and originally exist as fiction within Fuka-Eri’s novel, then later appear within the world of 1Q84.

Murakami’s idea of the Little People, as an invisible and malevolent controlling force, is juxtaposed against the idea of Big Brother from George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-four, as the totalitarian force that causes people to rewrite history so often that they forget which history is the true history. One character says that upon arriving at the year 1984, ‘There’s no longer any place for a Big Brother in this real world of ours,’ because Big Brother would be too obvious to people since the concept is universal. The Little People, however, are unheard of, and can easily remain hidden.

The characters identify the world as an alternate reality by the change in news stories which places the cult of Sagikake into the world, and by the appearance of two moons—a large one and a smaller moss-green one.

The three-part book is an epic 925 pages and is a slow-going read, but rewards the reader with richly painted scenes that border between the real and surreal. At times Murakami’s fantasy elements can seem incomprehensible, but readers should allow the narrative to unfold rather than attempt to decrypt the fantasy. Readers may question whether the original Japanese had other meanings, but certainly the prose in the translation (by Jay Rubin and Philip Gabriel) is flawless.

The story contains an adolescent connection between the main characters that drives the plot as a love story. There are sexual depictions that tread the line between erotic and disturbing. While Aomame is a tough and highly sexual character, she can easily be seen as an action hero born of male fantasy.

The narrative contains stories within stories, which inwardly explain the direction of the plot, then outwardly and self-reflexively reveal the motives of Murakami in writing the narrative. For example, Tengo explains why he thinks Anton Chekhov went to Sakhalin Island in Japan, as though Murakami were explaining why he created the world of 1Q84.

Murakami most likely bases Tengo on himself. Aomame at one point says, ‘Are you telling me that I was transported to this other world of 1Q84 by Tengo’s storytelling ability […] ?’, which can be viewed as a metafictional reference to the author.

In reference to Air Chrysalis the story reads, ‘Her readers followed along, very naturally adopting her point of view, and before they knew it, they were in another world—a world that was not this world,’ which could refer to the readers of 1Q84.

Murakami also seems like he is mocking the literary community when he writes sentences like, ‘More than a few of the reviewers seemed perplexed by—or simply undecided about—the meaning of the air chrysalis and the Little People [...] “we are left in a pool of mysterious question marks. This may well be the author’s intention”.’

There are few references to Japanese ideas within the book, but very many Western references, which may be designed to appeal to Murakami’s Western audience. 1Q84 does appeal to a wide audience, but the fantasy may scare some mainstream readers away.

Andrew Wrathall is publishing assistant at Bookseller+Publisher and enjoys a quick trip to fantasy-land via the pages of a book before bed.

Etymology Monday: David Crystal on the word ‘unfriend’

Unfriend
a new age (21st century)

by David Crystal

In 2009 the New Oxford American Dictionary chose unfriend as its Word of the Year. It meant ‘to remove someone from a list of contacts on a social networking site such as Facebook’. A minor controversy followed. Some argued that the verb should be defriend. But the use of un- was already well established in the terminology of reversing computer actions, with undo, unerase, undelete, unbold and many more. As a New York Times article said in 2009 (15th September), we are living in an ‘Age of Undoing’.

Unfriend also probably appealed because it feels more English, as evidenced by a history of earlier uses dating from the 16th century. Antonio describes Sebastian as ‘unguided and unfriended’ in Twelfth Night (III.iii.10). A noun (an unfriend) occurs as early as the 13th century. And in the 19th century, a member of the Society of Friends (the Quakers) could describe a non-member as an unfriend. Defriend, by contrast, had no such history, so it has been slower to take root. But both unfriend and defriend are found in the social networking world now, with unfriend almost twice as popular in 2010.

Prefixes and suffixes continue to make their presence felt in word coinages of the new millennium. We find ecogloom (‘depression about environmental progress’) and bargainous (‘relatively cheap’), overthink (‘think about something too much’) and underbudget (‘underestimate costs’), catastrophise (‘present a situation as worse than it is’) and therapise (‘provide therapy’). As technology allows us to investigate smaller and smaller entities, previously obscure prefixes such as nano- have become widespread. It is, according to some commentators, a nano-age, with a nanocosm containing nanomachines using nanomaterials on a nanoscale, and investigated by nanoscientists. Virtually any word, it seems, is going to be prefixed by nano- sooner or later.

Nano- has left micro- a long way behind, though micro- did receive a boost with the advent of micromessaging. The posting of very short entries on a blog came to be called microblogging, and when Twitter arrived in 2006, with its 140-character message limitation, it was soon being described as a microblogging site. There are microbooks, micromovies, micromusicals and microapps now. Speaking as a lexical coolhunter (a 1990s’ marketing term: ‘a monitor of cultural trends’), I wouldn’t write it off yet.

This is the final extract in a series of five taken from The Story of English in 100 Words by David Crystal, published by Profile and distributed by Allen & Unwin, $29.99, out now. Scroll back for ‘OK’, ‘gaggle’, ‘bodgery’ and ‘mead’.

Etymology Monday: David Crystal on the word ‘OK’

OK
debatable origins (19th century)

by David Crystal

The little word OK has a linguistic reputation that belies its size. Over a thousand words in English have an etymology which, in the words of the Oxford English Dictionary, is ‘origin unknown’. Nobody knows where bloke comes from, or condom, gimmick, nifty, pimp, pooch, queasy, rogue or skiffle. Theories abound, of course, some very ingenious. Did nifty arise as a shortened form of magnificat? Is gimmick from magicians’ use of gimac, an anagram of magic? But no word has attracted more theorising than OK.

Is it from Scottish och aye? Is it from French au quai (the goods – or girls – have safely arrived ‘at the quayside’)? Is it from Choctaw oke (‘it is’)? Is it from Wolof okeh (‘yes’). Is it from Latin omnis korrecta (‘all correct’, sometimes written by schoolmasters on homework)? Is it from the Greek letters omega + khi (an early incantation against fleas)? Is it from Obediah Kelly, a railwayman who used to authorise freight movements with his initials? There are dozens more.

Thanks to a fine piece of research by American lexicographer Allan Walker Read, we now know that all of these theories are wrong. It first appeared in 1839 in a Boston newspaper, where there was a vogue for inventing humorous abbreviations using initial letters – an early instance of a language game. KY, for example, would be used for the phrase know yuse (= ‘no use’). And OK comes from oll korrect, a humorous adaptation of the words all correct.

Why didn’t it disappear, like the other abbreviations did? Because in 1840 it came to be associated with a totally different use – as a slogan during the 1840 US elections. It was the shortened form of Old Kinderhook, the nickname of President Martin Van Buren – Kinderhook being the name of his hometown in New York State. There was a Democratic OK Club, with its members called the OKs, and they had a war-cry: ‘Down with the Whigs, boys, OK!’

The combination of the two usages, in a very short space of time, resulted in the rapid use of OK as an interjection meaning ‘all right, good’. Other senses soon developed, such as ‘fashionable’ (the OK thing to do) and ‘trustworthy’ (He’s OK). A century on, and the word was still developing new uses, such as ‘comfortable’ (Are you OK with that?). In British English, it received huge grafitti exposure during the 1970s, when the fad of saying that someone or something rules OK (= ‘is pre-eminent’) was seen on walls all over the country.

But OK has a linguistic reputation for a second reason: the number of variant forms it has accumulated over the years. There are variant spellings (okay, okey), a shortened version (‘kay), and several expanded forms (okie-dokie, okey doke(s), okeycokey). Today, I suppose it’s the basic OK form which is most often encountered, thanks to the dialogue button on our computer screens. Press OK and something will happen!

This is the fourth in a series of five extracts taken from The Story of English in 100 Words by David Crystal, published by Profile and distributed by Allen & Unwin, $29.99, out now. Come back next Monday for ‘unfriend’. Scroll back for ‘gaggle’, ‘bodgery’ and ‘mead’.

Etymology Monday: David Crystal on the word ‘gaggle’

Gaggle
a collective noun (15th century)

by David Crystal

I think it went something like this. A group of monks, wondering how to pass the time on a cold, dark winter’s evening in the 15th century, invent a word game. ‘Let’s think up words for groups of things’, says one. ‘What do we call a group of cows?’ ‘A herd.’ ‘A group of bees?’ ‘A swarm.’ A group of geese?’ ‘A flock’. Words like herd and swarm had been in the language since Anglo-Saxon times. There weren’t many of them, and the few that were available had been used for all kinds of things. People talked about a herd of cranes, wrens, deer, swans, gnats and more. The game must have palled after a while.

Then someone had a bright idea. ‘Let’s think up better words. What would be a really clever way of talking about geese?’ ‘A cackle of geese, maybe?’ ‘Not bad, but that better suits hens. What about gaggle? It goes better with goose because of the g’s? What do you all think?’ ‘Agreed? Write it down, Brother John.’

And Brother John did. Or maybe it was Dame Juliana. She was the prioress of Sopwell nunnery, near St Albans in Hertfordshire, and her name appears in a collection of material on hunting, heraldry and folklore that was printed in 1486, called The Book of St Albans. It’s one of the first English printed books, and it contains a list of some 200 collective nouns. Several are traditional expressions, such as herd. But many seem to be inventions. This is where we find a muster of peacocks, an unkindness of ravens, a watch of nightingales, a charm of goldfinches and dozens more. But the list goes well beyond animals. We find a diligence of messengers, a superfluity of nuns, a doctrine of doctors, a sentence of judges, a prudence of vicars and a non-patience of wives. And people tried out fresh combinations. ‘A gaggle of geese?’ ‘What about a gaggle of women?’ ‘Write that down, Brother John’. He did. A gaggle of women is recorded in a book written around 1470. An early sexist joke.

Why do I think this is the sort of thing that happened? Because this is a game people still happily play today, and human nature hasn’t changed that much in 500 years. A great deal of entertainment can be derived from thinking up the funniest way of describing a group of ‘X’ – where X can be anything from dog handlers to dentists. What’s the best collective noun for politicians, or undertakers, or linguists? Competitions have produced some fine examples. I made my own collection a few years ago, and found many that deserve prizes. Here’s a top ten:

An absence of waiters
A rash of dermatologists
A shoulder of agony aunts
A clutch of car mechanics
A vat of chancellors
A bout of estimates
A lot of auctioneers
A mass of priests
A whored of prostitutes
A depression of weather forecasters
An exces’s of apostrophes

And still they come. In recent times I’ve encountered a crash of software, an annoyance of mobile phones and a bond of British secret agents.

This is the third in a series of five extracts taken from The Story of English in 100 Words by David Crystal, published by Profile and distributed by Allen & Unwin, $29.99, out now. Come back next Monday for ‘OK’. Scroll back for ‘bodgery’ and ‘mead’.