venerdì 4 giugno 2010

Questions that authors are never asked

FROM THE GUARDIAN

As the Hay festival kicks off, with world-class authors being interviewed on stage all week, we invited writers to follow the example of Nadine Gordimer – one of the star billings this year – and ask themselves questions journalists never ask . . .

Nadine Gordimer
What is the most important lack in your life?

I've lived that life in Africa without learning an African language. Even in my closest friendships, literary and political activities with black fellow South Africans, they speak only English with me. If they're conversing together in one of their mother tongues (and all speak at least three or four of each other's), I don't understand more than a few words that have passed into our common South African use of English. So I'm deaf to an essential part of the South African culture to which I'm committed and belong.

What's the most blatant lie you've ever told?

Really can't distinguish. Living through apartheid under Secret Police surveillance made those of us who opposed the regime actively, accomplished liars. You lied that you didn't know the whereabouts of someone the police were looking to arrest, you lied about your encounters and movements; had to, in order to protect others and yourself.

What is the most demeaning thing said about you as a writer?

My eight-year-old son, when asked by a school friend what his mother's job was, said: "She's a typist." True, I was in my study typing some fiction or other at the time; I overheard, through my window, his judgment in the garden.

You were awarded the Nobel prize in literature by the king of Sweden. Do you look back on that as the best moment in your life?

Best moment? Reinhold Cassirer and I had just married, and were at a party in London. He had gone to find a friend in an adjoining room. I found myself standing beside a woman I didn't know, both of us amiably drinks in hand. He appeared in the doorway. She turned aside to me and exclaimed excitedly: "Who's that divine man?" I said: "My husband."

How do you react to a bad review of one of your books?

Ignore it if it's by some hack, easily recognized by his/her poor understanding of what the book's about. Pretend (to myself) to ignore it if its written by one whose judgment and critical ability I respect; and then take that judgment into account when, as my own sternest critic, I judge what I achieved or didn't in that book.

While writing, do you take drugs, smoke marijuana or drink alcohol to beef up your creative imagination?

Only a double Scotch; hours after my writing day is over.

As a liberated woman, would you nevertheless prefer to have been born a man?

Both sexes experience the joys of love-making. If she chooses, woman has the additional extraordinary experience of growing a life inside herself, and presenting the world to it. It's painful - all right. But the wider experience in life a writer has, the better the ability to identify with lives other than the writer's own, and create varieties of character, states of being, other than his/her own. I sometimes think, for example, I've missed out on extending emotional experience by never having been sexually attracted to a woman. Anyway, a writer as such is a special kind of androgynous creature, all sexes and all ages when creating fictional characters, all the people he or she has known, observed or interacted with. So while I'm a woman, as a writer I'm a composite intelligence.

When are you going to write your autobiography?

Autobiography? Never. I am much too jealous of my privacy. Secretive, if you like. It's all one has, in the end. Whereas anyone's biographer has to make do with what's somehow accessible, by hook or by crook.

Telling Times: Writing and Living, 1954-2008, published by Bloomsbury, £35.

William Boyd
Are the names of the characters in your novels important?

Extremely. I spend inordinate amounts of time trying to get the names "right" – even for the most minor walk-on characters. If you christen a character correctly, he or she, I believe, already starts to live on the page. You don't have to go the whole Dickensian-Vonneguttian hog, but a little unusualness about the right name works wonders. Characters called perfectly nice and normal names like "Martin Foster" or "Sally Thomas" will always struggle a bit to claim your attention.

What about the titles of your novels?

I couldn't publish a novel if I wasn't happy about the title. The title is a kind of benediction on the whole enterprise. To send a book out into the world with a title I wasn't happy with seems inconceivable to me. Sometimes the right title comes almost immediately; sometimes you're still sweating at it as the 11th hour comes and goes. It's a vitally important omen – for me, the novelist. I don't think it matters particularly to the reader.

Are there any occupational hazards to being a novelist?

Many, I'm sure. In my case I think being a novelist prevented me from ever learning to drive – natural indolence coupled with an absence of need. I also have a sneaking suspicion that eczema is the novelist's disease – or some kind of similar skin problem. Any suggestions, Dr Freud? Also there is the career-long advantage/disadvantage that you don't have to worry about waking up with a hangover.

What's your favourite fruit?

The raspberry.

Jacqueline Wilson
Why do you write for children rather than for adults?

I've been very focused from six or seven years old – I always wanted to write realistic but imaginative children's books, the sort I desperately wanted to read when I was growing up in the 1950s and could rarely find.

You seem to have a lot of time for children, and chat to each one at long signing sessions. Don't you ever get sick of kids?

There are occasional children who are pert or demanding and irritating – but I always try hard to be friendly. Mostly, the children I meet are delightful, and it's a joy to talk to them. It's easy to be warm and welcoming – because I know that at the end of the day I return to a serene and child-free adult home.

Are you interested in anything that isn't child-oriented?

Of course I am. I collect antiquarian books, and have a vast library; I love art and know my way around most of the major art galleries; I have a passion for unlikely things like Doctor Who, Queen, films of the 50s, dancing, medieval saints, designer clothes, highboard diving . . . but don't ever expect me to go on Mastermind!

Ian Rankin
How many people have you done away with over the course of your career?

You mean the body count in my books? I've no idea. I think it's quite low – one or two corpses per tome, and each book represents a year in the life of Edinburgh.

Ever dispatched someone and then regretted it?

Often. The prospective member of the Scottish parliament in Set In Darkness – I liked him, but the narrative didn't. Then there was the old priest Rebus used to hang out with – he died of natural causes, but it came as a bit of a shock.

Have you ever been in trouble with the police?

Back when I was writing the first Rebus, they did add me to their files for a short time. I'd gone into a police station to ask a few questions, and it turned out Knots and Crosses bore some similarities to a case that was ongoing back then.

Why do you never write about sex?

I find it embarrassing.

More embarrassing than violence?

God, yes.

So when were you last involved in a real-life punch-up?

I'm usually the one holding the jackets.

If you were going to commit the perfect murder, how would you go about it?

Pick a victim whose absence from the world is going to cause as few ripples as possible.

You've obviously given this some thought.

Keep bugging me with questions and you'll find out.

Ian Rankin, thank you.

Rose Tremain
Are you a member of the Cornish aristocracy?

Alas, no. No Manderleys for me and nor for Jon Tremain, my first husband, who gifted his nice name to me. I used to be somebody known as Rosie Thomson. Rosie was fond of black eyeliner and white boots. Her paternal great-grandfather was William Thomson, archbishop of York. Her maternal great-grandmother was a chambermaid.

What was the name of your first typewriter?

Larry. It was a secondhand, industrial strength Adler, bought for eight quid in a blighted alley off Tottenham Court Road. It weighed a lot more than a mouth organ and made a rather more repetitive noise. Now, Larry Adler lives in soundless retirement in my attic.

What d'you want to be when you grow up?

A café singer in Paris, circa 1958, friend of Juliette Greco and Yves Montand. And I'd like to be kissed at least once by Simone de Beauvoir (but not by Sartre).

Aside from cocoa, what is your favourite bedtime drink?

A wicked concoction Richard Holmes and I have titled the Norfolk Slammer. We were given the recipe by a barman in Les Halles and have passed it on to a few carefully selected friends from mid-Wales, Somerset and Bengal.

No, but seriously . . .

My favourite line of poetry is: "And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes dropping slow".

Chang-rae Lee
Do you ever wish that you had an entirely uncreative job, like data entry or working in a factory?

When the writing isn't going very well, I admit I often wish I did something mechanical and repetitive for a living, perhaps something entirely physical. Of course, when I do such labours in the garden or around the house, like digging or raking, I tend to be irritable, so perhaps I'm dreaming.

Do you believe in a deity?

I'd like to believe in a God, and admire people who do, but I suppose in the end I can't say that I do. I don't know if this makes me more or less optimistic about existence. I do know I believe in humanity, not its inherent goodness or fallibility or anything like that, but rather its unending and amazing variety and possibility.

Do you ever write naked?

Not quite naked, but on hot, humid summer days (my study is poorly air-conditioned) I have to strip down to my undershorts to work. But almost stripped, there's a definite feeling of the elemental while I'm writing, a sense of physical exertion that's a welcome counterpoint to the endless operations of endless thought.

Jonathan Coe
The subtitle of your event at Hay this year is "fiction and comedy". Are the two things closely related, for you?

Very much so. When I was young, comedy was my greatest passion. So, after the usual childhood enthusiasms (Tolkien, Watership Down), the first books which grabbed my attention were comic ones: Kingsley Amis, up to a point, but more especially Spike Milligan. For a while I thought that Puckoon was the best novel ever written. Then in 1976 I discovered David Nobbs's novel The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin and realised that laughter could be harnessed to melancholy, and from then on my own path as a novelist was clear to me.

Is there a snobbery directed against comic writing in this country?

There's snobbery about comedy in almost all areas of the British cultural establishment. The scandal is not so much that David Lodge has never won the Booker (although he probably should have done) but that Ronnie Barker never got a knighthood when so many dreary "serious" actors have. Alexei Sayle pointed out that good comic writers give you everything that a po-faced writer does, and on top of that they make it funny, so in all fairness they ought to get more recognition. But the reverse seems to be true.

Jeremy Paxman wrote recently that you have "always suffered the condescension of literary Britain". Do you think he was particularly referring to the comic element in your novels?

I must say that I'd never noticed this until Mr Paxman pointed it out. Thanks, Jeremy! Now I shall be looking out for condescension everywhere I go, in a paranoid fashion. He might have been referring to the comedy in my books, I don't know.

But now, with The Terrible Privacy of Maxwell Sim, you're back to the funny stuff again?

Not just me – every British author seems to be at it. 2010 is turning out to be the year of the comic novel. Ian McEwan, Andrew O'Hagan, Nicola Barker, me – we've all put on our jester caps at the same time, for some reason. A reaction to desperate times, perhaps. And let's not forget David Nobbs, who was such a great inspiration to me, and who's still turning out fine novels in his mid-70s. Obstacles to Young Love is one of his best.

Finally, and on an entirely unrelated note, who would play you in a film of your life?

I've given this a great deal of thought. The trick, I've noticed, is to get yourself played by somebody extremely good-looking: Nick Hornby and Blake Morrison, for instance, have both managed to get themselves portrayed on screen by Colin Firth. But I intend to go one better than that, and I want to be played by Cate Blanchett. She was brilliant as Bob Dylan in I'm Not There, and I think that bringing depth and dramatic tension to a life story as boring as mine would provide her with the ultimate career challenge.

Sarah Dunant
What are the most important attributes to remaining sane as a writer?

Apart from the ability to write: a thick skin, the capacity for despair (and recovery), and the resistance to the odd attack of envy.

Have you ever read or seen yourself as a character in a book or a movie?

Never knowingly portrayed, though those who know me well would say that Holly Hunter in Broadcast News comes close.

Do you believe in God?

Only when my characters do.

What is the single most powerful challenge when it comes to writing novels set in the past?

Realising that for them their moment is the present and for them the future does not exist.

What do you consider your biggest failure?

The possibility that I short-changed my children by having so many other characters filling my head as they were growing up.

Has the dog ever eaten your manuscript?

Only when it was long overdue and I had spent the advance.

Antonia Fraser
Do you enjoy giving interviews?

John Banville
Who do you think you are?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Oh, yes? In that case, who do you think I am?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

But perhaps you should care?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I see – so, what's it like, then, up there in your ivory tower?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

A mole?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

All right, but doesn't even a mole have to venture up out of its hidey-hole and into the ordinary world sometimes?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

No ordinary world? Ha ha – what's this place, then?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I don't think I quite . . . ?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Would you believe I laughed when my editor warned me you were an awkward customer?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

All right, look, let's start again. Who do you think you – ? Ow! By doze, id's bleedig! . . . Has anybon god a hankie?

Margaret Atwood
Why are you such a pushover for everyone who wants you to do stuff for them?

I was the child who refused to eat her Easter rabbit-shaped cookie because I wanted to talk to it. I should just have learned early to bite the heads off quick. Otherwise the rabbits start telling you their tales, and then it's game over.

Will you never learn?

Apparently not. I still seem to get into the merde, as a result of being too naïve. I think novelists are the people who don't really know what people are talking about much of the time. That's why they write novels – to try to find out.

Do you really go around in a corset, high heels, and a whip, subjugating men, as a 1989 cartoon depicted you?

Not any more. Too old for it. So are the men, poor things.

Barbara Trapido
Do you research your novels?

No. I rush straight in. I say to myself, "Now then, Bee, you are a stroppy adolescent/a Jesuit priest/a GP/a prep school master/a grieving mother/a Shakespeare scholar/a motherless two-year-old . . ." I'll set about, yelling insults at myself into the glass, or wailing plaintively, or addressing a class of schoolboys. It's all quite audial: I do the police in different voices. And spacial: I pace about; I do sitting down and standing up, making gestures, acting out the business of getting on and off trains.

How much impact does your childhood have on your writing?

Lots. Fiction writers appear to divide into those who carry their childhoods with them and those who were born grown-up.

What about birth order?

Younger siblings are better at empathy and, having much less up-front power, they are better at developing subtle and devious stratagems as ways of holding their own. I like to think this makes us better at understanding the equally subtle and devious hearts and minds of our fictional characters.

How about health and the novel?

I think that being a serious child asthmatic and a chronic, five-star hay fever freak was probably a highly significant factor: in my day in my school, nobody else had these things. I not only had asthma but loose joints. Extreme double-jointedness. My thumbs can bend backwards. My elbows can turn inside out. Oddball, and very talkie. Exhibitionist. The converse of this showy-off gregariousness was repeated days off school in bed, often with secondary infections, so that I fell in love with solitude. The constant contradiction – introvert/extrovert – was much underlined by the drugs. Asthma drugs hyped you up, especially circa 1949; hay fever drugs doped you down. This is a pattern that still persists, even though the allergies have pretty well disappeared, and it feeds into my writing.

Andrew O'Hagan
What was the greatest thing you learned at school?

Typing. I have an O-Level in secretarial. I got an A.

Nothing else?

Smoking. And now I do both all day long.

Do you laugh at your own jokes?

All the time.

Isn't that quite conceited?

Yes, but not as much as weeping at the death of your characters, which I also do.

Do you admire your own work?

Only retrospectively. I mean, I look at some of it and feel that nobody else would have done it.

What are books for?

They're for replenishing the imagination.

And have you achieved anything?

Not much. But the attempts have been my own.

Are you proud?

My daughter is a brilliant person, and I'm proud of her. I'm also happy to have found the sentences for Maf the Dog. It wasn't an obvious book for me to do, but it was the right one.

Why?

Because writers must find new ways to be personal. You deepen your concerns and open a new path for your readers that way. It might lead you back to where you started, but the journey is everything in writing.

Are you fun to go on holiday with?

No. I'm a nightmare. I wear my trousers rolled. I get bored. I'm like Blackpool out of season, without the illuminations.

Oh dear.

I know. I was thinking of taking up butterfly collecting, or perhaps devoting myself to vodka shots.

Jeanette Winterson
How do you feel about being interviewed?

I feel like a perfectly good potato put through a masher. Nothing comes out the way I expected, and my skin is off, and the solid, sane things get pulped and the whole thing is served up easy to swallow, but not for me. I am still somewhere at the bottom of the masher shouting "I AM A POTATO GET ME OUT OF HERE".

Why do you think what you do matters?

Art and potatoes are pretty similar. Everyone needs slow-release energy and something to stabilise the gut. Art does that – it isn't fast food, but it isn't fancy food either. It's the solid stuff of life. I once had lunch at Heston Blumenthall's Fat Duck at Bray. I was very depressed because I am not a chocolate risotto kind of person. That night I dug up new potatoes from my garden with my hands, steamed them, covered them in olive oil and mint and chives, and ate nothing else. Then I felt better. The same thing happens to me with a book or a painting. It reminds me that life is good and solid, not about money and not about fad.

Have you ever found true love?

Yes, but then what do you do?

Sue Townsend
How many times a day do you think about death?

Do you think Jesus was wrong about his father?

Are you jealous of other writers?

What makes you cry?

What makes you laugh?

What are you ashamed of?

Why do you have a 9ft wooden giraffe in your workroom? Is it a pathetic attempt to turn yourself into a "character"?

Did you go off the music of John Adams when you heard that he sported a pudding-bowl hairstyle?

Are there benefits to be had from using a wheelchair?

What's the loveliest thing you have ever seen?

Has your hearing improved since your sight failed?

Is your poor health your own fault?

. . . and finally

Roddy Doyle

Questions I can't quite believe I was asked:

Is Roddy Doyle your real name?

Does your wife love you?

The internet says you have two children, yet you claim to have three?

How can you write accurately about the Dublin working class when you actually live in Los Angeles?

Are you friendly with any other Scottish writers?

Meteorologists track down Monet as he painted London bridges in smog


FROM THE GUARDIAN

Scientists have pinpointed exactly where Claude Monet was in the Savoy Hotel when he painted Charing Cross Bridge and Waterloo Bridge in heavy smog


Through a thick blanket of pre-war smog, it is hard to make out the bridge reaching across the Thames and the sun shining weakly above it.

Equally unclear is where the artist, Claude Monet, stood to create the painting, one of the "London series" knocked out by the great impressionist during his time in the capital between 1899 and 1901.

Now scientists claim to have solved the puzzle of Monet's vantage point, using computerised records of the sun's movement, ordnance survey maps of London and historical weather records. Together they reveal the exact spot where Monet stood on the balcony of the Savoy Hotel.

Monet was drawn to London at the turn of the century to paint the extraordinary effects of smog on sunlight. The combination of soot and fog caused the lighting conditions to change dramatically throughout the day, a phenomenon that was captured by Whistler in earlier etchings.

Diaries and other documents place Monet at the Savoy for his paintings, but historians have disagreed on which rooms he may have stayed in.

Researchers led by John Thornes, an applied meteorologist at Birmingham University, measured the position of the sun in the sky in Monet's paintings and cross-checked it with solar records. They then took further measurements of features in the paintings, such as the obelisk, Cleopatra's needle.

Putting all of the details together, Prof Thornes' team traced Monet's position for his paintings of Charing Cross Bridge (now called Hungerford Bridge) to the balconies of rooms 610 and 611 on the sixth floor in 1900 and rooms 510 and 511 in 1901. All of his paintings of Waterloo Bridge were from a balcony on the fifth floor of the hotel.

"Smogs fascinated Monet in the way they changed the light. He spent nearly six months in the end living at the Savoy, gazing out across the Thames, but sometimes the visbility was so bad he couldn't even see the river and the bridges," Prof Thornes said.

"Most art historians have got it wrong. They think Monet was in the corner suite of the Savoy, where Whistler stayed a few years beforehand, but he was more to the middle of the building," he said. The paper is due to be published in the Royal Geographical Society journal, Area.

"From our study, it is clear that Monet faithfully represented the weather and climate of central London at the time, and it is also clear how much the air quality has changed for the better since then. We can say that the London series of paintings can be cautiously used as a pictorial 'weather diary' of typical Victorian London fogs."

INTERVIEW WITH STIEG LARRSON

FROM TELEGRAPH
Stieg Larsson: the man who created the girl

Stieg Larsson gave only one interview about his Millennium trilogy of crime novels featuring the brilliant but troubled Lisbeth Salander. Three weeks later, before the books were published to worldwide acclaim and staggering sales, he was dead. Lasse Winkler, who conducted that interview, reveals what Larsson told him about the inspiration for his heroine and about the mysterious manuscript for a fourth novel.

'I could write a hundred of these books': Stieg Larsson It all started one sunny day in late September 2004, on a park bench outside the Gothenburg Book Fair. John-Henri Holmberg, a Swedish publisher, sat down next to me and told me about three manuscripts he had just read, written by a friend of his named Stieg Larsson. They would, he said, make their author the most famous Swedish writer in the world, “bigger than Henning Mankell”.

At that time, Mankell had conquered almost every market around the world, achieving international sales of around 20 million copies. Larsson, who was then working as an editor on an anti-racism magazine called Expo, hadn’t published a single word of fiction.

If it had come from anyone else, I would have laughed off Holmberg’s claim as a piece of far-fetched fantasy. But my faith in his judgment, and the fact that this Larsson character had waited until he had three manuscripts ready before even approaching a publisher, intrigued me. So the next day, I called Larsson and asked if he would let me interview him.

A few weeks later, on October 27 2004, we met in the Stockholm offices of Expo. The fading light of day seeped into a room furnished with a simple table, two plain chairs and a lamp. Larsson, a 50-year-old chain smoker, looked exhausted. After his death, much would be written about his indefatigable work rate, his superhuman capacity to write for hours without a break. It was clearly taking its toll. The only known fruits of his labour were, at that time, his exposés of racist and fascist organisations for Expo, a publication he had helped set up in 1995 in the wake of a spate of neo-Nazi murders. This work had drawn him into the public eye and provoked death threats.

Larsson lived with his long-term partner, Eva Gabrielsson, but his name was not on the doorbell of their flat and his address was not listed in any records or databases. The couple had several established routines whenever they left home: sometimes they would leave by the front door; at other times, they went out the back, via the basement. Larsson had a habit of glancing over his shoulder frequently, as if to check if anyone was following him.

Not long before our meeting, the police had informed him that photographs of him and Gabrielsson, as well as information about their address, had been found in connection with a murder investigation they were conducting in Stockholm.

I began our interview by inquiring about this aspect of his life, asking if he took any precautions to protect himself. It was a mistake. “Sure,” he snapped back, “but I’m hardly going to tell you about them, am I?”

When I suggested that he wouldn’t have to fear attacks by Right-wing extremists in the future, because his fame would protect him, his temper flared further: he didn’t believe that being a public figure would change a thing. “What I do foresee is that I will be able to be more choosy,” he said testily. “I have a job at Expo. I intend to keep it. It’s the publisher’s job to sell my books. My job is to produce them. I suspect I’ll have to make a few public appearances for them. But I’m already starting to dislike giving lectures, because I don’t really have the time.”

Thankfully, his ill humour evaporated when the conversation moved on to the subject of the Millennium series. What, I asked, was the source of his inspiration? The basic idea had been knocking around for a while, he said. He’d been toying with it back in his days at the Swedish TT news agency where he worked as a graphic designer and occasional writer, from 1977 to 1999. At some point in the early to mid-Nineties, he and a fellow journalist, Kenneth Ahlborn, were working on an article about the classic detective stories that were popular with young readers in Sweden in the Fifties, Sixties and Seventies.

“We were kidding around, talking about how you could write about those characters in their forties, when they were facing one last mystery,” he said. “That planted the seed, but nothing materialised back then.”


It was not until 2001 that Larsson stumbled upon the spark that would bring the Millennium trilogy into being. “I considered Pippi Longstocking,” he said, referring to the most famous creation of the Swedish children’s author Astrid Lindgren, a girl so strong she could carry a horse. “What would she be like today? What would she be like as an adult? What would you call a person like that, a sociopath? Hyperactive? Wrong. She simply sees society in a different light. I’ll make her 25 years old and an outcast. She has no friends and is deficient in social skills. That was my original thought.” That thought evolved into Larsson’s formidable heroine, Lisbeth Salander.

But he felt Salander needed a counterweight if his story was to be a success. Once again he turned to one of Lindgren’s characters, this time to Kalle Blomkvist, boy detective. “Only now he’s 45 years old and a journalist [called Mikael Blomkvist]. An altruistic know-it-all who publishes a magazine called Millennium. The story will revolve around the people who work there.”

Larsson was well-versed in the mechanics of crime fiction. Every spring and autumn, back when he worked for the news agency, he was assigned to write reviews that summed up the season’s releases of translated crime fiction. “I’d include the top five crime novels at that particular time,” he said. “Some of the writers I’ve praised are Sara Paretsky, Val McDermid, Elisabeth George and Minette Walters. Strangely enough, almost all are women.”

In his trilogy, he plays with the conventions of the genre. The first book, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, is a traditional whodunit with a caper thrown in. The second, The Girl Who Played with Fire, has a “lone avenger” feel, and the third, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets’ Nest is a fusion of spy novel and legal thriller. “I’ve read crime fiction all my life. A thing that’s bothered me about crime fiction is that it’s generally about one or two people, but there’s not much about society,” he told me. “I want to get away from that particular pattern: a lead, a supporting role and backdrop characters. In real life, people are integrated into society. That’s what happens in my books, as well. Minor characters don’t just walk in and spout lines, they interact and have an effect on the events. It’s not an isolated universe.”

When Larsson had finished his manuscripts he didn’t initially send them to Norstedts, the company that would eventually publish them. They went first to Piratförlaget, a Swedish publishing house that focuses on bestsellers: they didn’t even bother to open the package. So a friend of Larsson’s, a well-known Swedish journalist and the chairman of the Expo board, took the three books over to Norstedts instead. And the rest, as they say, is history.

I asked him what his expectations were when he submitted the manuscripts to the publishers. “If I wanted to be sarcastic, I’d say expectations don’t enter into it,” he said. “But anyone who writes for a living believes their material has commercial value, right? I believe that my books have that quality. That’s why I submitted them for publication. I know they’re good. I knew that someone would want to publish them. This is my retirement fund.”

Many people have wondered why Larsson, like most authors, didn’t tout the first book around as soon as he was finished with it. Why wait until he had three? “Why not?” he said. “I wrote them for fun. I didn’t write them with the conviction that they would be published. And things don’t really all come together until you get to the third book. Now the foundation is in place. And I can go on to write as many books as I like about these characters.” Then he added: “My original synopsis was for five books.”


I asked if it was true what I’d heard that he’d almost finished work on a fourth. “Yes,” he replied, “I’m a fast writer and crime novels are easy to do. It’s much harder to write a 1,000 word article, where everything has to be 100 per cent correct.”

He told me that at least 150 pages of the fourth book existed.

At the time of our meeting, Larsson had also sold the rights to his books in Germany. It was his first foreign sale, the smallest hint of things to come. He hadn’t seen any money as yet, but he knew that “a cheque that will pay for my apartment” was on its way.

I asked about Larsson’s future plans. How many Millennium novels did he want to write? “I can produce a hundred books in this series,” he said. “That won’t be a problem as long as someone wants to publish them and people want to read them.”

Three weeks after the interview, I was standing on a crowded platform in Stockholm, waiting for a train, when my phone rang. It was Åke Edwardson, a fellow crime writer of Larssons also published by Norstedts.

“Have you heard the news?” he asked me. “Stieg Larsson is dead.”

Time stood still and the noise around me faded into a hush. Was this some kind of joke, I wondered. If so, it was a bad one. How could Stieg Larsson be dead? I had just talked to him. Our magazine had just published an article about his bright future.

When I hung up I thought about the German advance, the money that would have opened up a whole new life for Larsson. It all seemed so unfair. So pointless.

In the years since his death, I’ve repeatedly revisited in my mind my one encounter with Larsson. I continue to marvel at his conviction that his books would be a success – and can’t help wondering what further treasures he might have bestowed on the world had he stayed with us a little longer.


Lasse Winkler is the editor-in-chief of the Swedish book trade magazine Svensk Bokhandel

When Poets Rocked Russia’s Stadiums

FROM NYTIMES.COM

By DWIGHT GARNER
Since the collapse of the Soviet empire in 1991, Russian poetry has begun to resemble American poetry in ways that are both fascinating and sad. What’s fascinating is how talented, and how different from one another, Russia’s young poets are. What’s sad is how little they are read, and how little they matter. Whatever reach contemporary poetry had in Russian society has vanished like wood smoke.

Boris Pasternak, whose work influenced subsequent poets.
The death on Tuesday of Andrei Voznesensky, a stirring poet of the post-Stalin “thaw era” in the 1950s and early 1960s, caused many to recall a time when that reach was enormous. Voznesensky’s generation of poets, which included Yevgeny Yevtushenko and Bella Akhmadulina, declaimed their work in sports stadiums to overflow crowds. A moment presented itself — the relative artistic freedom of the early Khrushchev era — and these poets pounced on the microphone. As Mr. Voznesensky put it, with a punk lip curl: “The times spat at me. I spit back at the times.”

The poets of the thaw era were liberating figures, and have frequently been likened to the West’s most word-drunk rockers and singer-songwriters: Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Leonard Cohen. They were political, sexy, a bit louche and sometimes ridiculous. They squabbled. Mr. Yevtushenko seemed to be alluding to poets too, when he asked, “Why is it that right-wing bastards always stand shoulder to shoulder in solidarity, while liberals fall out among themselves?”

The attention paid to Mr. Voznesensky’s death is a reminder not just of that ecstatic thaw era, but of how important Russia’s poetry has been over three centuries, from Aleksandr Pushkin to Anna Akhmatova, to the country’s sense of itself. It is a vast and elusive country, one that poetry — that pointed words — helped to unite.

Pushkin (1799-1837) is the rebellious founder of modern Russian literature, and the country’s greatest early poet, its Shakespeare: all roads snake back to him. He had a cultivated voice that nonetheless caught the Russian vernacular, and he continues to be adored there. In her recent and lovely book “The Possessed: Adventures With Russian Books and the People Who Read Them,” Elif Batuman describes Pushkin’s “cartoonish omnipresence” in Russian literary culture.

To illustrate her point, Ms. Batuman mischievously quotes a bit of a play called “Pushkin and Gogol,” by the early Soviet-era writer Daniil Kharms, in which Pushkin and Nikolai Gogol keep tripping over one another:

“GOGOL, getting up: This is mockery, through and through! (walks, trips on Pushkin and falls) Pushkin again!”

Ms. Batuman declares: “That’s how it is. Pushkin is everywhere.”

He is still widely taught there to schoolchildren. Among Pushkin’s qualities was a suspicion of power and corruption that would fortify his successors and help see them through the darkest hours. Here is Pushkin’s poem “Good for the Poet Who ...,” a bitter satire of writers who would curry favor with rulers, in a translation by Yevgeny Bonver:


Good for the poet who applies
His art in royal chambers’ splendor.
Of tears and laughter crafty vendor
Adding some truth to many lies,
He tickles the sated taste of lords
For more greatness and awards.
And decorates all their feasts,
Receiving clever praise as fees ...
But, by the doors, so tall and stout —
On sides of stables and backyards —
The people, haunted by the guards,
Hark to this poet in a crowd.

Now there’s a declaration of independence.

One of the best things about Mr. Voznesensky and his generation, during the 1950s and ’60s, was their veneration for, and deep knowledge of, the poets who had come before them and had been silenced (or executed) after the Russian Revolution of 1917.

Among these were the masters Akhmatova and Marina Tsvetaeva, whose work began to reappear in print after decades of circulating only in samizdat editions. Akhmatova’s work was attacked by Soviet authorities for its “bourgeois” preoccupation with love and God, and she would live to see her first husband, also a poet, shot without trial on a bogus charge and her son spend years in labor camps. Her banned cycle of poems, “Requiem,” written during the Stalin era and not published in full in Russia until 1987, is a devastating appraisal of the Stalinist terror and includes, in this translation by A. S. Kline, these bitter and ringing lines:


Seventeen months I’ve pleaded
for you to come home.
Flung myself at the hangman’s feet,
my terror, oh my son.
And I can’t understand,
now all’s eternal confusion,
who’s beast, and who’s man,
how long till execution.

Other poets of that era were even less fortunate. Sergei Yesenin had a mental breakdown and hanged himself in 1925, at the age of 30. (Jim Harrison’s small book of poems, “Letters to Yesenin,” published in 1973, is a tangled and elegiac tribute to him.)

Mr. Voznesensky reached back to other important Russian poets, including Boris Pasternak, whom he worked up the nerve to write when he was all of 14. Pasternak read the young man’s verse and wrote to him: “Your entrance into literature was swift and turbulent. I’m glad I’ve lived to see it.” Russians did not fall in love with their poets only because they attended to their country’s political realities, however. Far from it. As Vladimir Nabokov pointed out in his “Lectures on Russian Literature,” “Literature belongs not to the department of general ideas but to the department of specific words and images.” Delight and close observation can have a liberating moral force of their own.

Here is a taste of Tsvetaeva’s charming antilove love poem, “I like the fact that you’re not mad about me,” from 1915, translated by Andrey Kneller:


I like the fact that you’re not mad about me,
I like the fact that I’m not mad for you,
And that the globe of planet earth is grounded
And will not drift away beneath our shoes.
I like the fact that I can laugh here loudly,
Not play with words, feel unashamed and loose
And never flush with stifling waves above me
When we brush sleeves, and not need an excuse.

Russian poetry in 2010 has lost most of the awful things it once had to push and grind against — happily for its poets, perhaps, and perversely less happily for its verse. And surely the country’s poets are less read for some of the same reasons they are elsewhere, including the distractions of Yandex (the Russian rival to Google) and Odnoklassniki (the Russian answer to Facebook).

About Russian poetry, however, it won’t do to be a declinist. The next huge talents are surely out there, circling like baby sharks. (You can catch some of them in an engrossing book called “Contemporary Russian Poetry: An Anthology” published by Dalkey Archive Press in 2008 and edited by Evgeny Bunimovitch and J. Kates.) Most of them would probably agree with the Nobelist Joseph Brodsky, himself an exiled Russian-born poet. “Bad literature,” he declared, is its own “form of treason.”
.

mercoledì 2 giugno 2010

"Les Evadés de Santiago", d'Anne Proenza et Teo Saavedra : grande évasion à Santiago du Chili


D'APRES LE MONDE
C'est basé sur des faits réels, comme on le dit au cinéma, et c'est écrit comme un polar. L'histoire de l'évasion d'une cinquantaine de prisonniers politiques de la prison de Santiago du Chili, le 29 janvier 1990, méritait sans doute d'être racontée. La journaliste Anne Proenza et l'animateur culturel Teo Saavedra, ancien réfugié chilien en France, l'ont écrite avec les ressources propres à la fiction, qui permet de faire parler les personnages et de recréer leurs pensées, en toute liberté.

La gageure était de maintenir le suspens, alors que l'issue, réussie, était connue d'emblée. Pour y parvenir, les auteurs alternent la minutieuse description des préparatifs de la fugue, pendant presque quatre ans, et l'enquête menée juste après par le juge Juan Amaya.

Ainsi, la vie en prison et le jeu de cache-cache auquel se livrent détenus et gardiens servent de cadre à l'invention constante qu'ils mettent en oeuvre pour creuser un tunnel, évacuer les gravats et franchir une série d'obstacles, ajournant à plusieurs reprises l'évasion.

Parallèlement, le magistrat reconstruit peu à peu l'opération, pour tenter d'élucider les éventuelles complicités.

Ce récit croisé, où le talent des prisonniers le dispute à la lucidité du juge, prend toute sa dimension grâce aux personnalités des uns et des autres et surtout à la période très particulière de cette évasion. Les détenus appartiennent au Front patriotique Manuel-Rodriguez (FPMR), une organisation clandestine formée par le Parti communiste chilien, tardivement converti à la lutte armée.

Exaltation des résistants

A l'époque, la dictature du général Augusto Pinochet affronte une large coalition d'opposition, la Concertation démocratique, fondée sur l'alliance entre les démocrates-chrétiens et les socialistes. Après avoir perdu un référendum, le dictateur se voit obligé d'accepter les premières élections libres depuis le coup d'Etat de 1973.

La transition démocratique est lente et fragile, mais indéniable. Cependant, le FPMR continue sur sa lancée. L'attentat contre le général Pinochet (1986), son action la plus retentissante, échoue et relance une répression sanglante, dont les communistes font les frais.

A la prison de Santiago, les détenus poursuivent leur plan de fugue, en dépit des débats politiques, qui prennent parfois des allures de règlements de comptes. Les incertitudes ne se limitent donc pas aux problèmes techniques du tunnel, résolus avec des outils de fortune, dissimulés y compris aux prisonniers appartenant à d'autres partis politiques.

De son côté, le juge Juan Amaya, personnalité attachante, tente de retrouver l'indépendance et le courage longtemps perdus par une magistrature entièrement soumise aux militaires. Ce récit enlevé gagne ainsi en épaisseur et déploie les dilemmes complexes d'une période troublée.

L'exaltation des résistants, consacrés corps et âmes à leur projet audacieux, n'empêche pas les auteurs d'évoquer les discussions qui divisent les militants. Leur évasion apparaît comme un dernier pied de nez à la dictature, mais aussi comme un acte gratuit et presque désespéré.

D'une certaine façon, l'Histoire avec un grand H se faisait ailleurs, loin des opérations spectaculaires des combattants de l'ombre. Comme ailleurs en Amérique du Sud, le changement est passé par la lente accumulation de forces d'une opposition armée uniquement des valeurs de liberté et dignité humaine, qui a finalement eu raison d'une dictature féroce.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LES ÉVADÉS DE SANTIAGO d'Anne Proenza et Teo Saavedra. Seuil, 308 p., 18,50 euros.

Paulo A. Paranagua

martedì 1 giugno 2010

At the end of the day, a cliché has its uses

FROM TELEGRAPH
One writer's hackneyed horror may be a source of delight for others, says Philip Hensher.

By Philip Hensher

When it comes to clichés, writers divide in two. For some, writing is a "war against cliché", in the title of a collection of Martin Amis's essays. For others, they have their own poetic force; they can be relished even when they are totally flat.

Kazuo Ishiguro is very much one of those who likes a sordid cliché. At the Hay festival, he was challenged by the academic John Mullan about the use of such drably over-familiar phrases as "to tell the truth" and "to be fair". These, Mullan said, were the sort of phrases footballers like to use.Ishiguro enthusiastically agreed, and went still further. He found many of them, he said, "poignant and beautiful". He singled out "at the end of the day" as "full of stoic ruefulness", and suggested that the fear of committing a cliché had "a kind of snobbery" behind it.

Ever since George Orwell wrote his essays on the English language, and probably before that, the budding writer has been told that clichés are to be avoided at all cost – "like the plague", someone once said to me, quite seriously. They are lazy – in fact, they have their origins in the laziness of printers. A cliché was originally a line of type left on one side after use, because it would soon be called on again. Orwell's list of clichés has now passed into history – "jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno…" But his point that you should never use an expression you are used to seeing in print remains, for many writers, a forceful prohibition.

Zadie Smith put this very well. "In each of my novels," she confessed, "somebody 'rummages in their purse' for something, because I was too lazy and thoughtless and unawake to separate 'purse' from its old, persistent friend 'rummage'. To rummage through a purse is to sleepwalk through a sentence."

A writer like that would die rather than write "at the end of the day". And yet cliché is only one step in an unobjectionable linguistic process by which poetry is tamed and domesticated. The 16th-century translator of the Bible who first used the expression "by the skin of my teeth" was a vivid poet, and the phrase caught on. At some point, it became a dreary cliché; but subsequently it passed beyond cliché, and now is really just a neutral idiom.

A lack of familiarity with such a phrase can restore all its poetic force. "There is no happiness," Randall Jarrell once wrote, "like mistaking an idiom in a foreign language for a poetic inspiration." There is a lovely German expression, "wo sich die Füchse gute Nacht sagen", literally meaning "where the foxes say goodnight" and metaphorically "the back of beyond". Probably, to a German speaker, the English equivalent is as strange and poetic as the German is to me.

Ishiguro was speaking about footballing clichés, and he is right to think that they have their own poetry, which a little attention might restore to us – "over the moon", "a game of two halves", "early doors", "strong on paper". Other areas of professional endeavour have their own mysterious poetry of cliché, notoriously management-speak: "the elephant in the room"; "it's not rocket science" (I once heard someone say "it's not rocket salad"); "run it up the flagpole"; "shoot the puppy"; "blue-sky thinking": these all have their own innate beauty and even energy.

Many writers respond with a kind of rueful enjoyment to such exotic coinings, long after they have been deadened by over-use. Personally, I've used some quite cheap clichés in my novels, intending to outrage and amuse – once, even, "like a knife through butter".

And it isn't hard to find famous lines of poetry which relish the most exhausted idioms. When W H Auden wrote, in his sonnet about A E Housman, "Deliberately he chose the dry-as-dust/Kept tears like dirty postcards in a drawer", the tawdry cliché and the brilliant coining bang up against each other. If "dry-as-dust" is good enough for Auden, and "at the end of the day" for Ishiguro, perhaps the rest of us should stop worrying so much.

Philip Hensher's most recent novel 'The Northern Clemency' (Harper) is available from Telegraph Books

Looking for a ‘New’ Narrative of Founding Fathers

FROM NYTIMES
By DWIGHT GARNER

It’s one of the curiosities of American history that there is no definitive single-volume chronicle of the Revolutionary War, the kind of serious but approachable book that would grasp the conflict in the way that James M. McPherson’s “Battle Cry of Freedom” grasps the Civil War. “One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests,” the founding father Thomas Paine thundered. This war still awaits its great popular educator.


Linda A. Cicero/Stanford News Service
Jack Rakove

REVOLUTIONARIES

A New History of the Invention of America
By Jack Rakove
487 pages. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. $30.

It’s not that the American Revolution hasn’t produced entire platoons of excellent surveys, including — but far from limited to — Don Higginbotham’s “War of American Independence” (1971), Robert Middlekauff’s “Glorious Cause” (1982), Gordon S. Wood’s “Radicalism of the American Revolution” (1992), Joseph J. Ellis’s “Founding Brothers” (2000) and John Ferling’s “Almost a Miracle” (2007). But no real consensus has anointed one of them. In terms of sheer narrative thwack, historians have had better luck breaking off small slices of the period, as David McCullough did in “1776” and his biography of John Adams.

Into this hot fug comes Jack Rakove’s new book, “Revolutionaries,” which bears the subtitle “A New History of the Invention of America.” Mr. Rakove is a professor of history, American studies and political science at Stanford University. He was also the winner, in 1997, of a Pulitzer Prize for his book “Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution.” He sounds like an interesting man, the kind who sometimes gets his boots muddy. He has been an expert witness in Indian land claims litigation.

What’s “new” about “Revolutionaries”? Well, you have to squint to grasp the subtleties, which will mean more to scholars than to an educated general reader. But Mr. Rakove says that a historian needs to be “as precise as possible about the experiences, attributes and events” that gave the Revolutionary generation its defining character. Part of that precision means dismissing any sort of Tom Brokaw-like “greatest generation” haze and noting that there were really two generations of 1776, an older cohort that included men like George Washington and Samuel and John Adams, and a younger group that came of age with the Revolution, including Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.

Mr. Rakove tells the story of the American Revolution from a multitude of shifting angles, dividing his book into sections that include liberators, lawmakers, generals, diplomats. “Revolutionaries” is a serious, probing work of history that boils down a career’s worth of thinking and research. It’s not a particularly memorable or stirring book, though, and certainly not the one-volume lightning strike some have sought.

Mr. Rakove’s search for new ways to approach the American Revolution has led him to linger long over the lives of many lesser-known participants. These include political moderates like John Jay, Robert Morris and also John Dickinson, the man who became, in July of 1776, the last to give a major speech in Congress opposing independence. Mr. Rakove spends pages on early constitutional thinkers like George Mason IV. He spends even more pages on Henry Laurens and his son John, who had an unfulfilled scheme to encourage slaves to fight in the war and open a door to their emancipation.

These stories aren’t dull, exactly. But too often the major players — Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, the Adamses — are left pacing in the hallway, and never quite come to life. Reading “Revolutionaries” is like reading a history of the Beat Generation that spends as much time on Gregory Corso as it does on Allen Ginsberg.

Mr. Rakove is not a propulsive writer of English prose. When Fanny Trollope, the mother of the novelist Anthony Trollope, traveled through this country for her book “Domestic Manners of the Americans” (1832), she complained that the accents of our language were redolent “less of freedom than of onions and whiskey.” Mr. Rakove’s prose could use more onions, and more pints of whiskey. (More tar, more feathers!) Too often it has a diffident, distracted air.

Here are a few of the things I admired about it, however. Mr. Rakove doesn’t lionize his historical personages. They’re unruly and full of gripes. (Franklin on John Adams: “He means well for his country, is always an honest man, often a wise one, but sometimes, and in some things, is absolutely out of his senses.”)

He is brilliant on the no-frills mien of American soldiers. He quotes John Adams remarking about some revolutionary troops: “They don’t step exactly in Time. They don’t hold up their Heads, quite erect, not turn out their Toes, so exactly as they ought.” Mr. Rakove’s excellent reply: “They had the characteristic slouch that would always distinguish an American army from its Old World counterparts — the ‘Willie and Joe look’ that the great World War II cartoonist Bill Mauldin later captured.”

The legal profession takes a regular, reflexive drubbing in America. But Mr. Rakove reminds us how lucky we are that so many of our founders had closely studied law. He quotes Edmund Burke, who wrote that devotion to the law “renders men acute, inquisitive, dexterous, prompt in attack, ready in defense, full of resources.” Burke added: “They auger misgovernment at a distance; and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.”

My thought was to end this review of a sturdy book on an upbeat note. But then I remembered how Mr. Rakove ends “Revolutionaries,” with an impossibly wet sentence that, after you’ve slogged through more than 400 pages, is a bit like a slap in the face. Here it is: “How these unlikely provincial revolutionaries discovered the talents they did remains an enduring puzzle of our history, easier to ponder than finally to explain, yet one ever worth exploring.”

That’s the last sentence? That’s it? That’s not even a sigh, it’s a whimper.