Calling an author sui generis is a cliche, but in the case of Raymond Queneau it is nothing but the truth. Pierrot Mon Ami, his eighth novel, is a fine introduction to the particular style of this French polymath.
Pierrot, a young man of twenty-eight, starts out with a new job at the “Palace of Fun” in Uni Park (an amusement park based on Paris’s Luna Park) helping women off a moving obstacle and holding them over a air vent which blows up their skirts for the delight of the “philosophers” who pay to watch the spectacle. He quickly loses the job after an incident involving the boss, his daughter, and bumper cars. From there, across the few days that encompass the majority of the novel, Pierrot works as an assistant to a fakir, delivers animals for a zoo, and passes through a string of events that compromise a sort of mystery-detective story about identity and the past.
It’s hard to sum up the plot of this novel, as what amounts to the plot here is a number of events banal in appearance but more mysterious on closer look. Coincidences pile up and bring events and characters together. Pierrot, no detective he, passes the time playing pinball and trying to think of nothing (“better than not thinking”), maintaining a decidedly cheerful disposition in the face of unemployment and lost love.
he saw clearly how all its [the preceding events] constituent elements could have been combined into an adventure that might have developed into a mystery, later to be solved like a problem in algebra in which there are as many equations as unknowns, and he saw how it had not turned out like that.
Queneau takes the mystery and turns it around so that we see the back of it, never getting enough information and never finding anyone (except ourselves) interested in the solution. Pierrot walks through a world without conclusions and he does it happily.
Many of the characters muse on the past but find it hard to remember all the same, while others seem to barely remember the present (the love of Pierrot’s life seems unable to remember him without prompting). Forgetting and the vagaries of memory offer constant topics of conversation to all but Pierrot, who remembers but seems unconcerned by his past.
Throughout, what really makes the book a joy to read is Queneau’s (and in this case the superb translation work of Barbara Wright) style. He mixes the most colloquial of language, the dialogue and speech habits of the common man, with words that will send the most well-read individual to the dictionary. He plays in a thesaurus of synonyms (Pierrot’s glasses are glasses, cheaters, spectacles, gig-lamps, etc.). Also far from insignificant is the humor: Queneau is very funny. Comedy abounds in the dialogue, narration, and slapstick situations.
Queneau’s work is hard to describe, it just has to be read and enjoyed. Whenever I find myself with reader’s block–unsure of what I want to read next and putting down with disappointment anything I pick up–Queneau is like a palate cleanser for me. His novels help me recall the joy of language and storytelling and the potential for literature to be polymorphous, crossing genres, high and lo, philosophy and comedy.
From the Chicago Reader: “A tragedy,” said A.E. Eyre. “A thoughtless misuse of funds that could have done the world so much good.” He’d just read my column in this week’s Reader. He’d found out that a California woman donated half a million dollars to Light Quarterly, a Chicago literary magazine for the advancement of light verse.
Conversation with Ben Spivey, editor for Warm Milk Press, a publisher of handmade chapbooks.
As noted on the Europa Editions website, Italian author Valerio Manfredi has a U.S. tour lined up. Nice to see this happening for Manfredi, what with all these do-it-yourself author tours going on during the recession.
Now this is why I love Borges.
With all due respect, I think the answer is pretty clear–it’ll help their books sell.
Andrew Seal argues that “Chicago and New York are to U.S. fiction what Tolstoy and Dostoevsky are to the Russians. Sorry, Boston. Sorry, L.A. Sorry, D.C. Sorry, San Fran. Sorry, the South. You have your claims, no doubt, but they are as the claims of Pushkin, Lermontov, Chekhov, or Gogol.” Discuss.
Phelan goes on to say, "There will, I’m sure, be no consensus about what constitutes badness or whether it belongs to the book, the reader, the situation of reading, all of the above, or none of the above," though he's almost wrong there. The list is pretty varied, from the morally-bankrupt to the so-bad-it's-good varieties, though generally the harshest judgments come against fussy stylists and purple prose. Cormac McCarthy gets singled out, by name and illustration, multiple times.
Wherein we learn that Imperial hasn’t gotten nearly the attention it deserves and “Vollmann was exceptionally gracious as both host and interview subject, quite generous with his whiskey and his time.”
In some of the best news ever, Margaret Atwood is going to have a cameo in a movie musical about hockey. Seriously. I am — what is the word? – giddy. Don’t believe me? Atwood discusses it on her blog. Can this news get better? Hell, yes. The movie also stars Olivia Newton-John.
New issue of the New York Review of Books is out, with Colm Tóibín on exile lit.
Lipsyte: Well these were the famous classes that he taught and others have written about it. He would kind of perform an amazing monologue for hours that would be a work of art in and of itself, in the way it was constructed in real time and kept pulling threads through and weaving all these elements together, but the content of it would be reflections on writing and art and what it is to be an artist and how one should approach the page. And then at the end of that—and that could go for four or five hours—at the end of that, he would call on students to read from whatever it was they were working on, but normally you wouldn't get too far, because he would stop you probably within a sentence or two and point out all that was false in what you had perpetrated.
In the brief essay that J.C. Hallman will deliver at a panel discussion at the 2010 AWP Conference in Denver, Hallman will offer up his own insights as to the nature of this admittedly flawed practice. The essay will be, to some extent, experimental. It will have a self-referential quality, it will aspire to innovation, indeed it will even be accurate to describe it as "meta-," but of course Hallman will use none of these terms, though he would like to. Book proposals are not places for words like innovation and experimentation. Instead, Hallman's essay will be "quirky and fun."
Seven Nights Jorge Luis Borges (trans. Eliot Weinberger). New Directions. $12.95, 128pp. In Seven Nights, the recently re-released collection of lectures-turned-essays originally given in Buenos Aires in 1977, Borges does not discuss the phenomenon of déjà vu. He does, however, speak at great length about nightmares and dreams, which he describes as “a kind of modest [...]
Best European Fiction 2010 edited by Aleksandar Hemon, preface by Zadie Smith. Dalkey Archive Press.448 pp, $15.95. “The great pest of speech is frequency of translation,” Samuel Johnson once wrote, in the preface to his iconic Dictionary of the English Language: No book was ever turned from one language into another without imparting something of its native [...]
“There are, of course, newspapers to keep responsible Americans up to date when trouble looms, and public television or even the History Channel to inform us about the occasional historic battle or archaeological discovery or civil war. What else do we need?” Claudia Roth Pierpont frames her essay on the contemporary Arabic novel, published in [...]