Art & Criticism

London calling

Published on March 14, 2008

Curt Purcell, of the excellent pulp/weird fiction/horror/sci-fi/etc blog Beyond the Groovy Age of Horror has been inspired to explore “the ultimate urban setting, the original Big Bad City, the real Metropolis: London”. The list of books he plans to read is interesting in its diversity:

Here’s a listing of what I’ve set aside in my to-read stacks. I don’t plan to read these in any particular order, and I may not get to all of them this time around. In any case:

Soft City by Jonathan Raban

Our Mutual Friend by Charles Dickens

London: A Pilgrimage by Gustave Dore and Blanchard Jerrold

The Secret Agent by Joseph Conrad

The Man Who Was Thursday by G. K. Chesterton

At the Back of the North Wind by George MacDonald

Limehouse Nights by Thomas Burke

London Under London by Richard Trench and Ellis Hillman

London Dossier by Len Deighton

Burden of Proof (retitled Villain) by James Barlow

The Long Firm by Jake Arnott (also with something about the BBC television adaptation)

Tainted Love by Stewart Home

The Man from the Diogenes Club by Kim Newman

SAM 7 by Richard Cox

The Medusa Frequency by Russell Hoban

Mother London by Michael Moorcock

London Fields by Martin Amis

Something from the Nightside by Simon R. Green

London Revenant by Conrad Williams

Caballistics, Inc. from 2000 AD

It’s a list that can be almost infinitely extended, because there are few cities that have had such a hold on the public imagination as London. Sure, every big city has literature associated with it –even Amsterdam has writers associated with it, like Simon Carmiggelt– but London is different in that its attraction is worldwide, perhaps matched only by New York. Even Rome is only a village compared to London, as Nancy Mitford teased. Unfortunately, that does result into a certain amount of arrogance and navelgazing on the part of the London based media and literati circles, the illusion that because London is so important, they and everything they do is important.

Orientalism – Edward Said

Published on March 5, 2008

Cover of Orientalism

Orientalism
Edward Said
396 pages including index
published in 1978

There are some books that I’m sort of ashamed to review, not because the books themselves are so bad but just because I should’ve read them years ago. Orientalism is one such book. Both it and its author are so often namechecked by leftwing bloggers that I felt a slight twinge of embarassement for only reading it now. Also, I don’t know how it is with you, but I’m often wary to read such widely acclaimed books anyway, as there’s something so “Rik the people’s poet” about reading Said, or Chomsky for that matter. It can look poseurish and nobody wants to come over as that.

Nevertheless, Orientalism is a genuinely important book, even now, thirty years after its first publication. It’s main argument — that Asia in general and the Middle East in particular have long been misrepresented in the west as “the Orient”, an exotic world filled with prejudices and cliches in order to serve imperialist goals in the region — may look a bit obvious now, not as radical as it was at first publication, but this is in great part because Orientalism laid out this argument so convincingly first. In fact it had such an impact, that even thirty years onwards there are still people trying to cut it down to size, as a quick Google search shows. It touched a nerve, perhaps not in the least because Said was an outsider to the academic orientalist tradition he was criticising.

On bookshelves

Published on February 11, 2008

It’s that perennial middle class literary question: should your bookshelves accurately reflect what you read, or should it have the books read by the kind of person you would like to, as Ezra suggests:

Bookshelves are not for displaying books you’ve read — those books go in your office, or near your bed, or on your Facebook profile. Rather, the books on your shelves are there to convey the type of person you would like to be. I am the type of person who would read long biographies of Lyndon Johnson, despite not being the type of person who has read any long biographies of Lyndon Johnson. I am the type of person who is very interested in a history of the Reformation, but am not, as it happens, the type of person with the time to read 900 pages on the subject.

I can sort of understand this, in that there are always books you want to have read but are less keen on to be actually reading, but buying books with no real intention of ever reading them? That’s wankerish, only one step removed from something like George Bush’s reading list, where you know the person and see the books they supposedly read and think “naaah”. These tricks never work, because when people pull them they always get the same sort of Generically Erudite Library , with the Joyces and the Nabakovs and the 900 page Charo biographies and all that, but without the real sort of esoteric interests a proper bibliophile develops.

Cory Doctorow

Published on October 27, 2007

I’m not sure I actually like Cory Doctorow, either as a blogger or an esseff writer. Boing Boing used to be on my blogroll until it got too up itself for me, and I’ve tried his fiction but haven’t managed to finish any of it. Part of what annoys me about him is his relentless self promotion, part his equally relentless, somewhat naive techno exuberance. The combination just sets my teeth on edge.

A good example was linked to by Making Light the other day, a short called “Other People’s Money“, which was written for Forbes. The excerpt below showcases what I dislike about Doctorow’s writing:

“You’d have thought I’d learned my lesson by then, but no, sir. I am the original glutton for punishment. After Bubble 2.0, I took my best coders, our CFO, and a dozen of our users and did a little health-care startup, brokering carbon-neutral medical travel plans to Fortune 500s. Today that sounds like old hat, but back then, it was sexy. No one seriously believed that we could get out from under the HMOs, but between Virgin’s cheap bulk-ticket sales and the stellar medical deals in Venezuela, Argentina and Cuba, it was the only cost-effective way. And once the IWWWW signed up 80 percent of the U.S. workforce through World of Starcraft guilds, no employer could afford to skimp on health insurance.
The word would go out during that night’s raids and by the morning, you’d have picket lines in front of every branch office.

The whole story is like that, one long infodump laced with buzzwords and jargon to show what Doctorow thinks could be our future. It’s near future and of a type that I should like, like much of Doctorow’s work, as it’s simular to what people like Neal Stephenson and Bruce Sterling have also written. There’s one great difference though, in that their stories were grounded in a political and sociological awareness that I find lacking with Doctorow.

Art and politics

Published on October 6, 2007

Wag the Dog movie poster

I don’t know if any of y’all read Roy Edroso at all, but Roy specialises in making fun of the kind of rightwing meathead who only appreciate any kind of art if it’s propaganda for their cause. There’s a whole army of lowrent rightwing cultural commentators making a living by telling fellow wingnuts how conservative a movie is or not, who only value art for how well it adheres to their own political positions, and Roy is very good at showing up the absurdity of this. Roy’s basic position seems to be that when politics are put above art, art suffers, so only fools want art to be nothing more than propaganda. And he’s right of course,there’s nothing quite as awful as art that is mindlessly political (Ian McEwan’s Saturday springs to mind).

But at the same time, art, good or bad, always has a political dimension. Even art that says it’s apolitical has one, if only in the refusal to engage openly with politics. How an artist, a novelist sees the world informs their art and politics is always a part of it. And it’s the subconscious politics that are the most interesting, when it’s not put in there for purpose, but because that’s the way the author thinks the world works.

An example, Wag the Dog, that 1997 film about a president who two weeks before the elections get involved in a sexual scandal, for which his advisors fake a war to get him out of. It’s surface politics are trite and predictable: you can’t trust politicians, they will do anything to keep their job, you can’t trust the media because they fake everything blah blah blah. But behind that surface lie much more interesting politics. This is a movie that wants to present itself as cynical and knowning, but seen with a decade of hindsight, it just looks incredibly naive and, well, dumb.

Dumb because the cynicism at the heart of it is fake, a Hollywood idea of how politics work. A war with Albania is faked to distract attention from the president being accused of sexual assault. How is this done? By getting a movie producer to fake this war, who gets in a lot of other people to do this with them and it’s all swallowed by the great unwashed. In the end the producer, once he wants the credit for his success of course has to die to keep it all a secret, but the president gets re-elected and nobody is any the wiser… Nobody innocent dies, the phony war is so phony that nothing happens outside a television studio and it’s all smug bullcrap. We’ve seen what really happens when wars get faked and the endresult is a lot less neat than this movie suggests. We’ve seen that presidents do not hesitate to kill thousands of innocents for the sake of their own career, without the need of Hollywood advisors to help them on their way.

That’s right, Wag the Dog actually sugercoats the real truth, its cynicism is fake. And I think it is because it’s actual target is not the corruption in Washington, but corruption in tinseltown. It’s all about a bunch of Hollywood liberals playing around with things without once considering their impact on the real world. It is in fact a very conservative criticism of Hollywood, despite the fact that supposed liberals like David Mamet have worked on the movie.

And that’s what I mean with the subconscious politics of a piece of art.