Reading the 20th Century discussion
Archive
>
Welcome to The Midnight Bell (a virtual pub and general discussion thread) (2024)
His Wikpedia entry is impressive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_...
I have only read Mayflies which I thought was well done.
Mod
Everything he touches etc etc
Mod
https://www.foyles.co.uk/events/backl...
Anyone else watching 'Shoulder to Shoulder' on iplayer? It's a BBC mini-series from the 1970s about the Pankhursts and the Suffragette movement. It's a bit clunky, you can see that a number of actors, production people etc still understood TV as an extension of theatre and act/stage scenes accordingly but the content/history is quite gripping. Also has Sian Phillips and Patricia Quinn who worked together in 'I, Claudius' a couple of years later.
Mod
I'll try to fit it in
Mod
Judy wrote: "I'm going to watch Shoulder to Shoulder over the next few days - it's something I've been wanting to see for years. They put it on BBC4 to mark Sian Phillips's 90th birthday."Me too, kept coming across references to it but couldn't find it online or on DVD, so really excited to finally be able to watch it.
Thanks Alwynne. Sian Phillips is always worth watching
Mod
Susan wrote: "https://www.panmacmillan.com/blogs/ge...Sad news :("
Yes, sad news. I have enjoyed all the Shardlake books and his two standalones.
Susan wrote: "https://www.panmacmillan.com/blogs/ge...Sad news :("
Oh that is sad; I still have the last two Shardlakes to read but how sad that there won't be more
Mod
I’m sure we all feel the loss of such a talent. I know I will miss his books greatly.
Mod
I enjoyed the New York trilogy many many moons ago
RIP PA
‘A literary voice for the ages’: Paul Auster remembered by Ian McEwan, Joyce Carol Oates and more....
https://www.theguardian.com/books/202...
That's sad news Nigelb. I've only read 4321, perhaps not the best place to start but I was reading every 100th book in the library and this was what my finger landed on ...I think he nearly pulled it off , a novel full of great characters and many digressions , but in the end it's was boring to keep company of four different versions of a person so clearly based on a childhood Auster for over 1000 pages ..that said the writing was good, often funny and if you want to get into the period of the 1960s protest era in New Jersey/ New York it's definitely worth it .
I was reading an article in The Guardian where Meryl Streep comments that men find it hard to see themselves in female characters. I wondered how much that's the case. Personally I've often identified with male characters in books/films etc in which they're the primary figures, Although part of this harks back to the notion of the male as a stand-in for a more universal perspective. So that their existential dilemmas are often assumed to be everyone's. Although I do gravitate towards books that centre on women and/or by women.
Mod
Which doesn't mean I can't enjoy novels written by men featuring or focalising via male characters but maybe I'm more of an observer in those cases rather than identifying with the male characters?
Mod
This man finds it very easy to imagine being a female character and seeing things from that perspective
It's such an interesting topic and phenomenon. It's one of those areas where both the writer and the reader determine whether that kind of identification happens. I often feel that I am identifying with a female character, but then I wonder how accurate that projection is, or whether it is simply another form of the "male gaze".It does raise the fundamental question of how much we are able to identify/empathise with any other person, whether of a different sex, race, era, profession etc., or even in our own family. It requires knowledge, imagination, desire, openness. And how do we know whether we have done so successfully?
My sense is it's always an effort to leave one's own skin and some do it much better than others. In real world interactions there are (imperfect) ways to test it, but one never fully knows. Who hasn't been surprised by misperceptions of the feelings of others?
I wanted to add that this is one of my motivations for reading: to gain perspectives outside of myself, seeing the world through another mind, eye and body. But if the other perspective is too other, it remains outside of me, or I remain outside of it.
Mod
This is such an interesting subject .For me it's less to do with male or female authors or characters but more about whether someone make a character live for me . That's a trick so many authors fail to pull off ; the character remains a slave to an archetype devised in order to personify an idea or move a plot along , becoming a cliché.
I think the best characters escape the grasp of their authors intentions and the best authors allow themselves to be led along a path that is uncertain but much more vital .
Of course this means the best authors are both the best observers of people and have to remain curious about the vast complexity of human behaviour and it's motivations.
Like you Ben I'm endlessly curious about people and reading is a great way of
" meeting" people across time and space ..if a character fascinates me I find myself thinking about them when I should be writing a shopping list or cleaning the sink ..in fact some are still with me years later ...
Mod
Books are a great way to empathise with other people’s perspectives and gain an understanding of their life experience, motivation and personality. The more I think about it the less I agree with Streep’s original assertion
I think that Meryl is repeating the stereotype that men are less empathetic than women--just using different words. Is there a statistic proving reading builds empathy? We know it's true. :-) It would be fun to compare how much empathy is increased by reading novels versus watching films. And it does have to do with imagination, doesn't it. I agree with Hester that it often depends on whether the author makes the character live for me. If so, I could be almost anyone/anything. If not, like Ben says, I'm still outside.
As a suggestion, Frankenstein,'s monster, if taken as a archetype, is about as 'other' as a main character can be. Nominally it is a male character, but, is it?Could the book succeed if readers, male and female not come to feel empathy with it?
A large part of literature has as it attraction, that it is located in a time, space or unreal space (example: science fiction) such that the task for the author and reader is> Can the reader identify with that world, its characters and invest in them.
Were I to suggest a testable hypothesis, is a 2nd or 3rd generation of readers, raised on a video centric, high speed data transference world, able to slow down enough to do what is called in the literature: Deep reading.
Watching and hearing activate differ ant parts of the mind, often by- passing analysis and reasoning centers. And yes there is research on this ,
Mod
I would say the same thing about an author writing about what it means to be, say, neurodiverse or blind or deaf etc. when they aren't themselves.
Culturally, we generally accept an 'own voices' principle - and I'm not sure I see gender as outside that framework.
As an example, I've said elsewhere that I think Patrick Hamilton does a generally good job of creating female characters who I believe in. But what doesn't happen in his books that I've read to date is his women feeling fear of what a frustrated man may do to her when they are alone in a dark and lonely place and when frustration can so easily turn to aggression and violence. There's a high cringe factor, and embarrassment comedy - but as a woman I have a consciousness of how much stronger (and in my case, taller and generally bigger!) most men are than me. I don't mean that I walk around in fear of all men (!) but there's a sort of inner alert or warning button that I have. I don't think that's part of Hamilton's view of the world and so he doesn't give that consciousness to his female characters in the way that a female writer might.
Roman Clodia wrote: "I (respectfully!) disagree. I don't think identifying with a gendered (or racialized) character is the same as having empathy for them. And I don't think either that it's a straightforward act of i..."So many good points.
I have for years posted that at some point a writer has to write what they know. . Which is to say that on most points: we agree.
What I do not accept is that a writer has to be X or have lived X before they can write about it.
I begin with equivocations. Such as: a writer has lived through some form of major physical pain and can therefore write about other types of pain.
More generally: A writer having paid attention to how people who are X or have experienced X can approximate that experience. Possibly this is the essence of literary criticism, or at least the reviewers art.
Ultimately we can go to the other extreme. Unless you are Ms XYZ of 123 st, Apt A then you cannot write about Ms XYZ of 123 st, Apt A . This gets very complicated if several people are inspirations for a character. Having started in this direction is a reviewer allowed to have an opinion on how a writer imagines a person/experience unless we are that person or have had that experience?
As for the critical analysis you have done, to your satisfaction with Mr. Hamilton- Overall you are less than fully satisfied with his female characters. Were he writer withwhom I was familier, my tenancy would still be to defer to your opinion.
Specific immediate example; I am about to start Franz Werfel 's' 40 Days of Musa Dagh. A book that brought to the world the story of the Armenian Massacre. Werfel was German actually Austrian and Jewish. The Armenians were thereown national ID and believers in the Armenian Apostolic Church, a very old branch of Christianity. The massacre had happened a few years before he had any awareness of it. Should I toss the book as it cannot have had the benefit of personal experience by the author? My ability to deal with the book is likewise handicapped a as I am not German, Turkish, Armenian or Christian.
Mod
Hmm, no, that's not what I'm saying at all. I've specifically praised Hamilton on another thread for writing female characters in whom I believe. I think what I'm trying to express is that his imaginative attempt to get into a female psyche only takes him so far. There are aspects of what it means to negotiate the world in a female body of which Hamilton, as a man, is seemingly unaware. I'm not blaming him or condemning him for his own situatedness, I'm suggesting that a female writer might have conceived of some of his scenes differently.
Another example would be on our discussion of Piglet when our own intensely empathetic and female-sympathetic Nigeyb said that he recognized he has a demonstrably different relation to food and eating than his wife and daughter do. This is another place where culture is gendered. Susan and I, conversely, had a different relationship to that book than Nigeyb, even though we both brought our own personal experiences to it as well to nuance our responses. I'm not saying anything reductive and simplistic as to suggest all men or all women are going to respond in exactly the same way to any artefact just because of gender or any other characteristic.
Your example is trading in those extremes, I feel. And I suspect you know quite well that I'm not suggesting for a second that one cannot write or read history or fiction sympathetically or with comprehension if one hasn't experienced that precise situation for oneself. That would obviously just be silly and undermine the whole concept of imaginative art! 😉
Mod
This!
I also think it would be very interesting to consider this question with Esther Greenwood in The Bell Jar when we get to it.
In my experience male students often find Plath's poetry incomprehensible or terrifying while female students adore her even when they don't fully understand her. I've never taught the novel though so don't know whether it has the same gendered effect.
Before anything else. Thank you. This has been fun.
I think I get your point(s) tho I am not sure where we end.
The general statement seems to be that reader or writer, brings what we bring to the table, POV, gender, culture, experience, sympathies, and etc.
Frankenstein was intentionally an extreme, only as an example it was not to your larger point.
FYI Orientalism pretty much argues that all western scholarship on the Orient (mostly he means the Muslim world) is tainted by the fact that western scholars are not themselves, of the Orient. At some level , I think I was speaking to his case. For the rest, it is my point that the writer has to write what they know, but that cannot be the boundaries on what they write. Clearly you get that and just as clearly you make your point(s).
ETA
There is a reviewer who has seriously argued that one should never write a negative review of anything until the reviewer has attempted to write, that kind of story,poetry make that kind of art or food or whatever.
Hester wrote: "This is such an interesting subject .For me it's less to do with male or female authors or characters but more about whether someone make a character live for me . That's a trick so many authors ..."
I'm fascinated by the way some authors can create a character within a few sentences that you immediately warm to and want to follow their story.
Mod
My understanding of Edward W. Said's Orientalism isn't so much that western scholars can't understand the Muslim world, as that the abstract concept of 'the Orient' is itself a western construct, a kind of imaginative representation that does more to define the idea of 'the west' in opposition to 'the orient' rather than dealing with the east in and of itself.
Your second point about not writing negative reviews until we've tried to make or do the thing being reviewed made me laugh! On a purely practical basis it implies that because, say, I've never baked a cake in my life, I'm unable to review a cafe which serves stale cakes. Equally, because I've never made a film or TV programme, I'm not allowed to criticise one.
Secondly, and specifically on literature, this reviewer clearly is fine with wiping out centuries of scholarly and scholastic traditions including writings by Plato, Cicero, Montaigne and Aristotle who are, apparently, unable to 'review' Athenian and Roman drama and poetry because they never wrote it themselves!
"Secondly, and specifically on literature, this reviewer clearly is fine with wiping out centuries of scholarly and scholastic traditions including writings by Plato, Cicero, Montaigne and Aristotle who are, apparently, unable to 'review' Athenian and Roman drama and poetry because they never wrote it themselves! "I think we are in the beginnings of a processes to re asses all of , at minimum the western cannon , and by implication all of every culture.
Among the drivers of the process is the fact of women asserting their Voice (caps intended) but along with any number of voices of color, sexual orientation, and what was denigrated as the "Third Wold" among others.
IMHO cultural touch stones have undergone periodic reassessment in all times and place. In short the definition of who was Great and who was not changed with fashion or changes in critical understanding/analysis. Usually on a case by case basis. For example the Romantic style got largely obliterated as the Heroic style took over. (hope I got the order right)
This new reassessment has the potential of doing a lot more than placing a pass/fail on what my generation grew up on as the basics. It contains contradictions and has not stabilized, and may take more years that I have left. What will constitute a well read, a big 'C', Cultured person is not going to be what it was 'in my day'.
What I like the most about this reassessment is that so far it is predominately non-violent. IMHO the reactionaries, are making use of The Law to protect the status quo. Meaning the stakes have been raised. So long as the Black Morias are not rolling, watching with the occasional comment from the sides will be enough for me.
If you will allow some Shakespeare by way of Aldus Huxley:
O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world
That has such people in't!
Mod
Absolutely - I completely agree. The very idea of a 'canon' is one which is historicised, politically inflected, hierarchical. Almost by definition it is also backward looking. Which means than innovative, ground-breaking and experimental writing, or writing from marginalised voices, are outside what is deemed canonical.
That doesn't mean we can't still enjoy the literature of the past, of course, but it is worth being aware of the values texts may be encoding and what is excluded from a text's world view.
Again, my appreciation for your insights and patience.This goes against who I am, but I will try to keep still for a few so that some ahem ,other voices can use this lovely space.
Mod
However, they are discussing The Good Soldier in this episode. It is often listed as an author's favourite novel and I wondered whether anyone had read it and, if so, what they thought?
Mod
Mod
I didn't listen to the whole episode as they said it was so spoilerific but they made it sound well worth a read
PS the name Ford Madox Ford is great - reminds of PGW's Sir Gregory Parsloe-Parsloe
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Huge fan of the Hitchhiker radio show and TV show, (the originals)HH GG radio broadcasts used to be available, but I last saw them on cassettes, so maybe not so much. UTUBE Maybe? The Original TV Broadcasts are on DVD. IMHO they tended to hue very closely to the radio and however crude, the visuals worked for me. They may be too old and out of date for a less aged viewer.
As for the movie, that is a 25 year saga, not entirely to my taste, but full credit to
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
Susan wrote: "I shall digress from your interesting discussion. I am currently listening to Backlisted, who have a monthly residency at Foyles. I have booked to go in July, when Christie is the author discussed ..."Hello, I haven't posted in this group before, but just saw Susan's question about The Good Soldier and wanted to say YES, I have read it and I think it's great! I read it nearly 20 years ago and remember just saying "Wow" when I got to the end and then immediately starting to read it again. I don't think I've ever done that before or since. I loved the shifting and contradictory narrative voice and how the fragments of the story gradually settled into making a complete picture of the characters and incidents. I have read it a couple more times over the years and admit I was less bowled over by it than on that initial reading, and I have also bought it for a couple of friends who were less enthusiastic about it than I was, but I would still recommend it! It was great to hear it discussed on Backlisted and I was kicking myself that I hadn't listened to their previous episode sooner so I could have got tickets for the Foyles event (especially since it was on one of the few evenings I was actually free - typical...)
I haven't read the Ford Madox Ford but did read his trilogy Parade's End (By: Ford Madox Ford) published: January, 2013 slightly mystifying in places but fascinating overall. The BBC did an adaptation but only did the early parts so the result was vastly different from the series of novels. Anyone else finding themselves surprisingly upset about Michael Mosley? Been following his Just One Thing on the BBC site for ages.
Reading the 20th Century
Books mentioned in this topic
Middlemarch (other topics)The Sea, the Sea (other topics)
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (other topics)
My Name Is Red (other topics)
The Accursed (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Toni Morrison (other topics)Henry James (other topics)
Dorothy M. Richardson (other topics)
Warsan Shire (other topics)
Virginia Woolf (other topics)
More...
Congratulate him on his magnificent new novel
Loves it I does ❤️🔥