Despite the popular tolling of the novel’s death knell, former Booker prize chair John Sutherland has decided to put together a populist user’s guide to reading a novel in the 21st century. What he has created in How to Read a Novel is a clever book, assuredly for someone who is interested in literature, but who has perhaps managed to get through life thus far without suffering a single English 101 course.
Sutherland’s primary assumption is that in the contemporary world there are too many choices to make (10,000 new novels a year, he says) and that his guide will help readers figure out just what they’re supposed to do with all these books. Though there are several vignettes here that are well worth reading, I would argue that this is a beginner’s text: we never learn where or how to suss out patterns in a book, how to pick up on the themes (Nabokov cringes in his grave), the basic rundown from Modernism to Postmodernism, what the difference is between, say, magical realism and K-Mart realism, or how to understand the basic ideas behind a book.
Sutherland is a bright guy, a man who presided over one of the more controversial Booker prizes in recent history (more on this later) and a literature professor at University College London. He is one of the appallingly few “real” critics who has genuinely embraced technology, frequenting writing for the Guardian’s excellent blog. He is, however, not largely inclined to take up the popular critic reins from Matthew Arnold, who wrote that “the confusion of the present times is great, the multitude of voices counseling different things bewildering, the number of existing works capable of attracting a young writer’s attention and of becoming his models, immense: what he wants is a hand to guide him through the confusion.” Rather, Sutherland is interested in talking about how many novels there are, how we can tell one genre from another (the quality of the writing, though he doesn’t say this explicitly), what the reader can glean from the title, whether to buy paperback or hardcover, and what it means for a novel to win a prize. He doesn’t so much guide the reader to a specific kind of book as inform the reader of all the kinds of choices she has before her.
The first chapter of the book ends with the line, “if you want to know the overall health of a society, look at the quality of the books it is currently consuming.” A quick glance at the New York Times Bestseller List gives us Bridge of Sighs by Richard Russo at number 6 and Roth’s Exit Ghost at 12. Before, after, and in between are 18 novels of mediocre to very bad quality. Judging by this list, it would seem that American culture is on its deathbed. However, Sutherland doesn’t pass judgment on contemporary publishing; he doesn’t even note the current bestseller lists at the time of printing, which is unfortunate, because it’s an interesting opportunity for a well-read guy with diverse tastes (throughout, allusions to James Bond and pulp fiction mix with “higher” literary allusions) to really explore how an educated person can like both Bond and Maugham.
Sutherland is at his best when he is, essentially, relating the collected knowledge of his 60-plus years of reading. There is a ton of information here that even a fairly experienced reader might not know”the hardbacked (often ornately bound) three-volume novel cost, from the 1830s until the 1890s, an outrageous guinea and a halfequivalent to about 80£ in current value.” Sprinkled throughout the book, these interesting little notes are more interesting than many of the suggestions Sutherland centers his chapters around. The chapter on intertextuality is the best in the book. In it, Sutherland connects the Odyssey, Ulysses, Iris Murdoch’s, The Sea, the Sea, and John Banville’s 2005 Booker winner, The Sea. Banville’s title, which refers to Murdoch’s celebrated book about loneliness, is connected to Joyce’s great work twofold: Murdoch’s title is in reference to a line Joyce has quoted from Homer’s Odyssey, “Thalatta! Thalatta! The Sea, the sea!” With his title, Banville is just “intertextually, paying his dues.” This is, put mildly, pretty great. It would have been greater yet to see Sutherland expand on this potentially lucrative convergence.
Closely following Sutherland’s take on intertextuality is his discussion of the controversy surrounding the 2005 Man Booker Prize. For those who can’t bother to recall, this revolved around Banville (the winner) savagely reviewing Ian McEwan’s Booker-nominated Saturday. Perhaps it’s telling, though that Sutherland’s tale, albeit interesting, has no bearing on the overall course of this book. Perhaps also telling is that by placing McEwan’s and Banville’s petulance over a close reading of their texts, Sutherland has, probably unintentionally, scared readers from delving into their offerings.
Sutherland is obviously a bright guy, and How to Read a Novel is, in many instances, an interesting book. There’s a lot of to learn herehow author photographs came about (in the 1860s), the history of scandalous fictions (going as far back as Aphra Behn!), and how Tolstoy and Austen use ironic first sentences to set up the rest of their respective novels. Overall, though, the book is disappointing: so many chapters in this book feel clipped; so many ideas unworthy of elaboration go on for pages. In the end, Sutherland’s book feels more like a hodgepodge than a serious approach to the question of reading a novel.
John Harrison lives and reads in Maine.
The latest posts at the blog of The Quarterly Conversation
I’ve been thinking a lot about heat waves. The thick summer weather has felt like a wall of fire that must be bravely pushed through to order to exit from an air conditioned office building and make my way to the corner to board a bus crowded with sweaty citizens. So perhaps it’s no surprise that [...]
"What’s not so up for dispute is that Markson accomplished what, by all rights, should be a literary impossibility." (Colin Marshall for The Millions)
"Ich liebe dich. No sentence pronounced by a judge could be more threatening. It means that you are about to receive a gift you may not want." Via Dylan Suher, Greg Gerke's sort-of review of William H. Gass's Reading Rilke in BIG OTHER.
A fan of Herman Melville must have patience. He must appreciate digression and the dissolution of pattern or plan. He must enjoy the sheer rush of words, a proper Biblical torrent of them. And he must be able to find pleasure in philosophical dialogue as much as in wild anecdote. But must he read Clarel? Can [...]
This is just one small example.
Thomas Bernhard is certainly one of the major, titanic writers of any era, any country. Enormously influential, unremittingly bleak and pessimistic but never without a sense of humor, his style evolved into single-paragraphed philosophical rants extending hundreds of pages, the best of which are Woodcutters, ‘Walking’ (from Three Novellas), and Gathering Evidence. I have finally [...]
Ever since Penguin's 75th Anniversary roadtrip I have intended to address the somewhat simultaneous release of Penguin 75, a sort of vanity book of Penguin covers. This book is delightful, but flawed. Delightful, but misleading.
In The Unicorn Hunt (1993), the fifth book of Dorothy Dunnett’s cycle of historical novels of early Renaissance Europe, the House of Niccolo, Dunnett tells of the deficiencies of wealthy merchant Anselm Adorne’s relations with women thus: His wife Margriet could have warned him. He was familiar with motherly wives and the skittish ways of other [...]
Janet Holmes, director of Ahsahta Press, based at Boise State University in Idaho, took the time this week to share her thoughts on poetry publishing as part of my ongoing series of publisher profiles. Ahsahta publishes seven full-length collections of poetry a year, including recent works by Kate Greenstreet, Lisa Fishman, Rusty Morrison, and Julie Carr. Like some other small presses, Ahsahta offers a yearly subscription option, which is one of my favorite ways to buy poetry and encounter the work of many poets who are new to me, as well as poets whose newest books I always look forward to reading. Janet says more about this and what it's like to craft a press's identity and consistent aesthetic.
An unfortunate side effect to the lengthy transition of print to digital is our long suffering endurance of stale articles in mainstream media rehashing the same points as every other article in mainstream media.
The latest articles published in between issues
In Ransom, Malouf satisfyingly gives us a meeting between Priam and Achilles that builds from the interiority of Priam. The novel seems to want to teach the importance of doing something human to those who might never get around to picking up Homer or who, if they do, might wish they could get into the character's heads.
Winterson has always told and retold the same fictions: of parents and children; of origins, and adoptions; of differences, of margins; of love; of passion; she has always manipulated rhythm and language as an excavation of sources. Much of her fiction mirrors what we know of Winterson's own story, but she agitates against the idea that her work has to be considered as fiction or autobiography, laying claim to both. In Art Objects she writes: "The question put to the writer 'How much of this is based on your own experience?' is meaningless. All or nothing may be the answer. The fiction, the poem, is not a version of the facts, it is an entirely different way of seeing"; a "separate reality." At every turn she eludes the critic, the interviewer, the reader; she offers truth, but not the truth. "I'm telling you stories. Trust me."
It's difficult to pin down exactly why books as objects mean so much to me. I wasn't alive when William Goyen's excellent Come, The Restorer was published, but owning an original printing with the dust jacket—as it would have been purchased at the time of its release—makes the book more special to me than some beat-up paperback reissue. If it's signed, even more so. I'm only really interested in modern first editions (say, post-1950 or so)—before that books get quite expensive, but also I don't think they look as nice, since many were issued without dust jackets, and at that time the dust jacket wasn't considered a permanent part of the book, so they're often missing. So why the obsession and collecting, and why is it so important?
Wood can be harsh, yes, but he is seldom unfair. Wyatt Mason was wrong to accuse him of having suggested, by dint of a string of negative reviews, that no good contemporary literature exists. (He has written favorably of McEwan, Bolaño, Robinson, Ozick, Kirsch, Sebald, Roth, Saramago, Swift, Carey.) He never simply dismisses a writer (in the manor of, say, Dale Peck); on the contrary, his criticism, even at its most polemical and uncompromising, is inexplicably bound to larger concerns about the direction of contemporary fiction. Two major concerns have dominated James Wood's writing: realism and religion. In The Broken Estate: Essays on Literature and Belief, his first collection, newly available in paperback from Picador, these two concerns are beautifully imbricated, resulting in what is surely among the finest achievements in recent literary journalism.
To say that Mark McMorris's Entrepôt is about writing poetry is to do a huge disservice to this beautiful and penetrating book, whose ostensible subject of contemplation is how to live, love, and make do in a time of war, if not cultural crisis. On the other hand, the book's greatest service, at least to my eye, is in its exploration of just what it means to be a poet—I should be more specific and say a lyric poet—amid our contemporary terrors.