The Mookse and the Gripes discussion
Book Chat
>
Will Self, and the novel is doomed
date
newest »


I’m drawing up a list of important women writers, because I’m teaching a course on the importance of literary influence and the books that influenced me as a writer, and one of my students pointed out they’re all by men. Ditto with literature in English from more diverse cultural backgrounds and heritages.
His performance at the Goldsmiths reading was verging on a disgrace I thought - literally didn't let one of the other authors get a word in.


I thought, on the panel, he waited until others were finished speaking before he gave his (contrary, of course) opinion. It was his dismissive treatment of student questioners that made me uncomfortable.





I'd tend to blame Adam Mars Jones rather than Will Self for that. He should have brought her in. However, he did seem nervous, so perhaps it is a function of having to deal with Will Self!



I don't see a link to the original interview, so, for those looking, go ahead and click here.
I'm curious if anyone here thinks that the novel is doomed. I have to say, the notion is so cliched that I don't think I'd dare say it even if I did believe it, for fear of being called unoriginal and out of touch, and for fear of thinking that fear was absolutely justified.
It seems Self thinks the novel is dying because no one has talked about a particular one around the water cooler in his presence since Trainspotting. Does he think, then, that the novel, to be relevant, has to reach some threshold of public consciousness/reaction? Does he really think that hasn't happened since Trainspotting? And, for goodness sake, does he really think that happened with Trainspotting?
I always wonder, when someone makes this statement, if it's that they feel the novel doesn't mean the same thing to them in their personal life, and then they make the mistake of applying that universally. That he thinks Trainspotting was the last to inspire a water-cooler moment in Britain supports this, I think. I mean, you may not like it (and I do), but one has to at least acknowledge Harry Potter, right? Or is that not the type of thing he's considering? If that's the case, and I suppose it is, again I think that it says more about him than the state of the novel generally. I'd argue that such water cooler books as he seems to be invoking are quite rare in any period.
Or maybe he's right and I'm the one living outside of the mainstream. Perhaps I think the dialogue around books is active and lively, when it really isn't. Easily done, I suppose, when I'm part of this group and active on Twitter.
I'm curious if anyone here thinks that the novel is doomed. I have to say, the notion is so cliched that I don't think I'd dare say it even if I did believe it, for fear of being called unoriginal and out of touch, and for fear of thinking that fear was absolutely justified.
It seems Self thinks the novel is dying because no one has talked about a particular one around the water cooler in his presence since Trainspotting. Does he think, then, that the novel, to be relevant, has to reach some threshold of public consciousness/reaction? Does he really think that hasn't happened since Trainspotting? And, for goodness sake, does he really think that happened with Trainspotting?
I always wonder, when someone makes this statement, if it's that they feel the novel doesn't mean the same thing to them in their personal life, and then they make the mistake of applying that universally. That he thinks Trainspotting was the last to inspire a water-cooler moment in Britain supports this, I think. I mean, you may not like it (and I do), but one has to at least acknowledge Harry Potter, right? Or is that not the type of thing he's considering? If that's the case, and I suppose it is, again I think that it says more about him than the state of the novel generally. I'd argue that such water cooler books as he seems to be invoking are quite rare in any period.
Or maybe he's right and I'm the one living outside of the mainstream. Perhaps I think the dialogue around books is active and lively, when it really isn't. Easily done, I suppose, when I'm part of this group and active on Twitter.
I didn't see this until now, but I think Colin Barrett put my whole personal/universal thing so nicely in his tweet here:
"As a writer, I'd be embarrassed to ever say there's been no good contemporary writing/no good books in X number of years etc, because more than anything it just reveals the poverty of your own appetite for engagement."
"As a writer, I'd be embarrassed to ever say there's been no good contemporary writing/no good books in X number of years etc, because more than anything it just reveals the poverty of your own appetite for engagement."

FYI, Scott Pack linked to the actual interview in the second post on the thread which I why I didn't.
It sounds like Will Self has been saying this for quite some time, and indeed one of the students asked him about it at the Goldsmiths shortlist event, resulting in his nastiest reply of the evening.


https://twitter.com/AlexClark3/status...


Whenever anyone claims they are the only novelist to have tackled X one can pretty much discount any thing else they say.
Which is the best attitude to Mr Self-Obsessed.

Additionally, while doing a different talk with Martin Amis and Erica Wagner in Manchester, he tried to derail Ian McGuire during his introduction, mugging for the audience, mocking the compere. Is he just a provocateur arsehole?
(Yet he seemed very pleasant at Hay and when responding to an email I once sent him.)
https://twitter.com/meandmybigmouth/s...