Showing posts with label extended adolescence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label extended adolescence. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

How To Get Ahead in Writing (I Think)


Despite the fact that there are probably more reasons for writing a work of fiction as there are actual works of fiction it seems to be the case that there is one thing they all must possess to be successful in any meaningful sense: an audience. This isn't to say that fiction becomes better or somehow more fictional as more people read it, rather it's simply to state the commonplace that a writer is always writing in the belief that someone else will be reading what he's written. Even in cases where the writer aims to create the most obscure work imaginable he or she is still conscious of the fact that they are responsible for what someone else will encounter on the page or screen. This is as true of Ulysees as it is of The Twits.

How then are writers of “literary” fiction to balance this obligation to make some kind of sense (or non-sense) to their audience against the imperative to preserve their artistic integrity? Having recently read Kevin Barry's There are Little Kingdoms and Paul Murray's Skippy Dies (and knowing that both have amassed relatively large audiences for their work) I thought it might be interesting to compare the two in terms of their likely appeal to their respective audiences.

The first thing that strikes you is that both writers are preoccupied by youth. In comparison with works by the likes of Sebastian Barry or Colm Tobin you'll not find any elderly women here. The closest you'll get to old age is one cruelly vital old priest and drunken Freddie Bliss, fondly recalling better days while his daughter tears apart his home. After that the oldest people we encounter are middle aged types refusing to recognise that they're rapidly approaching the point when youth culture will be completely alien to them. Youth, in all its conceited self obsession, reigns supreme and this illuminates part of the appeal of Barry and Murray: readers of “literary” fiction tend to be slightly more sceptical of youth culture than other consumers.

Another point of kinship between the two is their tentative embrace of post modernism. One never gets the sense that the narrative is unreliable beyond there being a strong sense that most of the characters (especially in Barry's work, a short story collection) are only interested in perpetuating some kind of self-deluding fantasy. This is most obvious in Barry's short story To The Hills, a tale of three single fortysomethings on a hiking trip:

Teresa decided that she was having a terrific time. This intimacy, she felt, was powerful stuff. Yes, she was greatly enjoying the whole experience but she would enjoy it al the more when she was at home on her couch, alone except for the cat, with the lights dimmed and a glass full to the brim and the late programme on Lyric playing low on the radio. Then she would savour it all truly.

Indeed, this fate of being dominated by the useless tendency to self-mythologise has already marked the cool-as-fuck Galwegian students in Party at Helen's, the doomed teenage hero of the “breeze-block” arcade in Atlantic City, and the randy farmer unable to help himself in Animal Needs. In recounting it all Barry adopts the tone of a sardonic pulp fiction narrator, despairing over the stupidity of his fictional charges but never doubting the ultimate worth of the story being told. Indeed, one of Barry's major assets as a storyteller is to ensure that the coolness of his stories is never in doubt; we're confident we can sneer smugly at his characters because they wouldn't understand the interest of their predicament if they encountered somebody else enduring it.

If it can be fairly said that Barry's aversion to post modernism arises from his contempt for his characters Murray's reticence concerning the unreliable narrator trope seems to come from a desire to be sincere. Like There Are Little Kingdoms, Skippy Dies features a doomed teenager (named Skippy, unsurprisingly). Unlike Kingdoms however, Murray's work explores in detail (it is not a concise work) the reasons for this death. In doing so, Skippy Dies makes clear what Kingdoms only implies: that meaningful communication between generations is impossible when youthfulness becomes a sovereign ideal. Murray explores this theme fully and the effect is that the teenagers resemble the kids in South Park: they're the only vaguely reasonable characters on display. Thus, we have the Howard “the coward” Fallon, a teacher working at his old secondary school who effectively endures a never ending adolescence because of a grisly teenage accident, the childishly ambitious school principal nicknamed “The Automator”, and Coach Roche, a former captain of the school rugby trading on his aura of faded glory. While not actively conniving in the propagation of teenage misery, the other adult characters seem completely ignorant of the mental and material well-being of their charges.

It's in this void of mutual comprehension where Murray differs most strongly from Barry: he seems to have a faint hope that literature might have some relevant role in the lives of these characters. And so Fallon goes on a voyage of discovery concerning the lives and works of Robert Graves and Rudyard Kipling, a journey which concludes with him echoing Alyosha Karamazov in trying to explain to his pupils why people suffer. This is probably the loveliest section of the whole book and shows that at least some of Barry's characters are trying to understand their predicament. Alas though, the hope that literature mattes was faint indeed and Murray ultimately achieves the rare distinction of being bleaker than Dostoevsky by implicating Fallon in the grotesque cover up surrounding poor Skippy's death. Despite the abundance of teenage humour in Skippy Dies it's really about as grim a read as you would expect from a book dealing with teenage suicide.

It's not hard to understand the appeal of Barry and Murray for their audiences: both deal with a theme that is a natural fit for literary fiction, namely the unhealthy and unhelpful appeal of youth culture. By their lights it purveys, at best, self-deluding fantasies while at worst it can bring about a lethal sense of alienation in those who place too much faith in its promises and suggestions. In assuming fairly conventional narrative voices they manage to tell new stories through old forms, and broaden their appeal even further
















Monday, June 24, 2013

Soccernomics: a dull book that's not really worth reading

Ah football, that relentless generator of guff. As I get older I'm struck by the growth in the number of journalists willing to pretend that there's something high minded about it all though. Perhaps this dawning awareness of tasteful anorakdom is all a part of the ageing process, like experiencing awful hangovers and feeling profoundly alienated by ads for certain mobile phone networks. Or perhaps its one of those singular facts of the Age, a consequence of the potential extension of adolescence until one is well into one's thirties (at least). Did our fathers really spend hours analysing the merits of pundits? Did their fathers spend significant chunks of their weekly income on replica jerseys?

Regardless, the reach of the football “experience” extends ever more deeply into pockets of our lives that had previously been untroubled by its clammy grasp. One of the undoubted high priests of its hermeneutics is Simon Kuper, football correspondant for the FT and the co-author (alongside economist Stefan Szymanski) of the book under review today: Soccernomics. Channelling the spirit of a zany management consultant watching Sky Sports News they've set out to uncover the key determining statistics and economic trends that lie at the heart of the modern game.

The first thing to note about this irritatingly absorbing collection of expanded newspaper articles (sample chapter title: “Why Poor Countries are Poor at Sport”) is that the authors themselves seem deeply confused about the merits of their approach: “Football is neither big business nor good business. It arguably isn't even business at all.” Economics, however, is primarily concerned with the most efficient means by which goods and services are delivered to the public. But if football clubs don't really make sense as a business then they are presumably not run with the intent of maximising the return on investment for their owners. As a result, all attempts to analyse how they can be best run from an economic perspective will collapse into a confused pile of sentimental opinions. To put it another way, one could well imagine a scenario where K & S present their findings to an assembly of chairmen, and the chairmen simply reply: “Well, d'uh!”

Unfortunately, this section appearing near the start is probably the most interesting in the book. Having apparently not noticed that they've seriously damaged the underlying premise of the whole enterprise they blithely carry on with rapidly diminishing returns. Their answers to questions like “are black managers discriminated against?” (yes, managers have so little influence that the market can't punish discriminatory hiring behaviour) and “what countries in the west care most about football?” (Norway ad Iceland, who knew?) are interesting enough but the exhaustive description of the statistical analyses involved are eye wateringly tedious.

Beyond the “football isn't really business” point highlights are hard to identify. The discussion of re-location consultants and the refusal by clubs to appoint them is instructive though as it actually shows the authors getting excited about something. Regardless of the frequently obscene sums of money involved in player transfers many of these deals fail because the purchasing club refuses to spend a franction more in attempting to reduce the unease inevitably felt by what are usually heavily sheltered young men in alien environments. Yet Kuper & Szymanski's estimable anger at clubs refusing to pay a relatively small amount of good money after wasting huge amounts of bad money is all too rare.

The absence of this vaguely ethical sense is also evident in their discussion of the shrewdest operators in the transfer market as great play is made of the “regression to the mean”. Despite the authors' insistance on how significant this tool is much of the insights advanced are most vividly explained through references to Peter Taylor's memoir of his time with Brian Clough. As other names like Wenger, Ferguson and Moyes frequently appear with disconcerting regularity the feeling that this whole section would work better simply as a description of their transfer policies only grows. Contrary to their assertion that managers don't really matter it would appear that they actually do have a fair amount of influence. Indeed, any self respecting economist would point out that it could hardly be otherwise in any well developed capitalist economy, obsessed as they are with marginal returns. Personality, or the ethical business of getting the most out of people, is all important when other resources are more or less equal.

Ultimately this obsession with the median seems to be a failing common to many of these “stats will change your life” books (and one hardly discernible at all in Kuper's “Football Men”). Rather than focusing on those who do well and considering the reasons for their success they emphasise life's dutiful trudgers. The effect of this is that they create a sort of mystery gap between the good and the middling and the only way to bridge this gap is to BUY THIS BOOK AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND! In truth though the basic point seems to be that there's little to understand, generally the fields of endeavour in question aren't profoundly difficult and those under observation simply need to pay more attention to what their betters are already doing.

So, to recap before I sign off: the joy of stats - a fairly thin conceit for an entire book.