I Don't Want To Know

As a writer, even though I am not part of any sort of literati, I am still plugged into the lit scene. You need to be if you want to understand the general to-and-fro of any industry you are interested in becoming a part of (same goes for TV, music, theatre, etc..). That said, I must make an admission. I am making this admission because I think there are a lot of people like me out there who feel the same but are reticent to admit it.

Here goes: I don't take any particular interest in the life of the artist outside of his or her art.

When I read a book, I don't care if an author comes from the East Coast and studied journalism, had a drug problem and now lives in a shed with a mastiff. It's not that I don't care about this author personally, it's that these facts shouldn't have anything to do with the book that I am about to read. I should be able to pick up the book, knowing nothing about said author, and be able to read it, enjoy it, be fully affected by it, without substantially missing something due to a lack of familiarity with the author's biography.

And yet, when you are culturally plugged-in (and by this I mean, you check out industry blogs, trade mags, etc.) there is so much white noise about the artists themselves that it seems divergent from what it is they are supposed to be doing: their work. We can talk about Picasso's passions, but 100 years from now there will probably only be discussion of his work - your work is the only thing left after you and everyone who knew you has died. And if people are still talking more about you than your work after this point, then I would think the quality of your work was overstated.

Would knowing that Stephen King battled drug addiction offer an insight into some of his writing? Yes. But, my point is that if that insight is necessary in order to fully appreciate a piece of work then there is a problem. The work doesn't work if you need a biographical cheat sheet to inject context into the material.

I think Bryan Ferry is an fantastic vocalist - and I don't want to know anything more than that. Nor the details outside a director's films, nor what inspired the playwright to write her play. I've got my own shit going on, thanks very much.

Ephemera is for journalists, fanzines, and those working on their Ph.D. The general public should not feel inadequate if they pick a DVD or book off a shelf, sit down in a theatre, or load a song without being prepared with supplemental information not contained within the medium which contains the work. The work inevitably has to stand up for itself. I write this for two reasons: first, with the likes of the AV Club and traditional print/TV media clamouring to add as much web-based context as possible to every article, there's a growing sense that - for the everyman - if you aren't savvy to the smallest details of each artist's passings and goings, you are nothing but a tourist. Secondly, embracing social media to a claustrophobic degree, we can now read endless commentating on authors reading their work for a live audience!...something no one really asked for outside the publishing companies themselves and perhaps the authors' parents. Let's face it: most authors can't read aloud to save their lives - it's not their specialty.

There are reasons for digging deeper, but that's up to the individual. It was interesting to learn more about HP Lovecraft when I reviewed Michel Houellebecq's quasi-biography of him and his work. What's funny, however - using that same example - is that when I proceeded to read the two works by Lovecraft contained in that same book, I don't recall thinking to myself "Ahh - this is where his uncomfortable relationship with women takes shape!". That's because the stories were two of his masterpieces, and when you witness a masterpiece, peripheral biographical information is going to gunk-up your enjoyment.

The medium may be the message, but the work contains the words. Outside of this we are left with cultural "bonus features". Nice to have, but not necessary.

Swirl

I am trying (desperately) to avoid a "boy, it's been a wacky ride these last few months!" post. It certainly isn't for lack of things to talk about, news to update you with, opinions to confess/shout.

Thing is, I don't know who you are. Sure, I know there are some of you who are semi-regular visitors. There are others who happen upon this place by accident (via Blogger or StumbleUpon). There are also those who come here via Google searches, either via my name or - most likely - a book review (which admittedly I haven't done in, oh, a year or so *). And no, this isn't going to be a "Matt wittily evading accusations of being a lazy bastard by turning the camera on the reader" post.

I've been posting artsy stuff, writerly stuff, industry opinion stuff. I don't mind the randomness, so long as there's no fluff. I do mind the lack of output. I wish, for one, that I could post more photographs (which is to say, I wish I had a better selection of photos to post **).

It comes down to the fact that I've been working like a dog since May (note: this happens every year that I'm working on a SAW film). When I come out of these periods, I feel like Rip van Winkle: a little dazed, slow on the up-take. Whereas last year this time I started teaching, this time this year I am a student (part-time) †. I have a small (but good) feature and a small (but good and potentially controversial) TV show on my plate from now till February. If funds allow, I also hope to have an editor working with me on my novel, with an eye to approaching a publisher or self-publishing if that doesn't seem feasible ††. I'm collaborating on a musical.

My plate is full.

- - - 

* which isn't to say that I'm not reading or that I don't want to do any more book reviews. I'm reading a lot of non-fiction, thank you. Much of it either out of professional or academic interest. However, if only to improve my Google ranking, here's a quick book review of Antwerp by Roberto Bolaño: What the fuck was that? (ISBN-13: 978-0811217170)

** another casualty of working so much is my photography. I still have the same roll of film in my camera that I'd loaded in June. I think I've only taken 4 exposures since then. Of course, my cellphone camera gets all the fun these days, unfortunately.

† I will be continuing teaching, but for only two terms this year as opposed to three (which was exhausting and... exhausting)

†† It needs a new name, for one thing. And I know this is going to drive me up the wall more than any changes to the actual content of the book.

Miscellany: November 18, 2008

• Ingrid is approaching world domination. Her plaudit-winning reinterpretation of the cover for Cormac McCarthy's The Road has not only received international online acclaim (Bookninja, The Guardian, Boston Globe), but her work was featured in Sunday's New York (bloody) Times Book Review. Print and online editions (with the unfortunate misspelling of her last name in the print edition - needless to say this took a little of the shine off of the accolade. They will, however be printing a correction in an upcoming edition and the online version has her name spelled correctly).

• I've sent the first revised draft of my novel to a few selected readers. Unofficially looking for feedback and consensus that what I'm doing is worthwhile. Nervous. Anxious. Perhaps as a result of this and other things, I've been struck by some interesting what-if's regarding a new book idea. I must be a masochist. At least it doesn't hurt.

• I turned 38 on Saturday. I share that day with Ed Asner and Tilda Swinton (they were not in New York, unfortunately - I tried).
  

• Two films I worked on opened within two weeks of each other. One is a franchise horror film (of the "moral error leads to violent suffering" kind) which traditionally draws massive audiences and box office gold (if not good reviews). The other is (wait for it) a gore-Goth rock opera which is only receiving an eight-theatre release (if not good reviews). They represent what I've been working on for the last twelve months. Working in film/TV is "what I do for money", a distinction I wish I didn't have to make, save for the fact that the quality stuff (often Canadian) doesn't pay my rent. It's a quandary punctuated by background horror-movie funhouse screams.

And The Winner Is...

As previously noted, Ingrid and I submitted "re-branded" book covers to Bookninja for their contest. Guess what? Even with a handicap of -10 (she is, after all, a professional book designer), Ingrid took first place by popular vote! But wait, there's more - a selection of the submissions are profiled in the (bloody) Guardian!

Congrats to her. As for my submissions, I placed somewhere in the honourable mentions, but sadly did not have any pieces profiled on the Guardian. I shall live vicariously through her success today.

Art & Suicide

As reported in the news over the weekend, spilling into the papers this week, American novelist/essayist David Foster Wallace took his life. He had hung himself in his home, only to be discovered later by his wife.

To be honest, I've only read one piece by Wallace - an essay in an issue of Harper's almost ten years ago on the release of the revised Oxford English Dictionary - and yet it left an indelible impression on me. It made me laugh out loud with its quirky honesty and his style was unique and strong; in short, it made me take notice of writing and writers at a time when it simply was not on my radar (for various reasons). I always swore I would read one of his books, but the prospects of picking up the one he is best known for, Infinite Jest, all 1,000 pages of it, was intimidating. It still is, but that has more to do with the fact that I'm in the middle (or, factually, just past the middle) of War & Peace with Joyce's Ulysses staring at me from the bookshelf longingly.

Wallace's suicide is the second in the last few years by an artist who's work I'd kept an eye on. The first was that of American humorist and performer, Spalding Gray, who - it is assumed - leapt from a ferry into the Hudson River and drowned. I saw him at Massey Hall (one of the most venerable venues in Toronto) many years ago. As with Wallace's essay, I remember crying with laughter during Gray's droll monologue.

Which brings us to the question of artists and suicide.

Someone on Bookninja had this to say in reaction to the story:

In my work (psychiatry) I’ve seen so many creative people who are so tortured inside. I’ve often wondered if, given the choice, they’d choose peace over creativity. Maybe suicide is exercising that choice.

I thought about this. I wanted to respond, because I had something to say, but in the end I decided it would only be a tangent and while tangents are allowable in most online situations, an obituary is not exactly the place for one.

The answer is that artists do not want peace, or at least an artificial peace. To do so would be to abandon the tension which is inherent in art (and science, for that matter). In their art, over the course of their lives, artists attempt to resolve this tension; to articulate what it is that is at the centre of a storm which motivates them to create. The tension is the artist. Them against an outside world which does not work. Art becomes a philosophical expression of an existential dilemma. With this as the case, how many artists would willingly barter peace for creativity if such a trade were even possible? Not many, I would wager. What is peace when art allows you to reach higher than ever before, to touch the cookie jar of euphoria with your fingertips?

Like Wallace and Gray, I too suffer from depression. Their passing gives me pause, to put it lightly. Last night over dinner, Ingrid and I had a long talk about this - Wallace, Gray, art, and suicide - and she used a quote from Wallace that she'd read in one of the obituaries, that suicide happens very slowly. He is right. It is not, as commonly portrayed, an impulsive decision, but rather something which gestates very gradually within the mind of the sufferer. The danger is that this internalized dialogue, over the course of years, may eventually lead to the rationalization or acceptance of suicide as a logical option or self-fulfilling prophecy.

Art, however, is not depression, and depression should not be construed as something which only afflicts those in the arts. When you are depressed, anything can inflame the situation. Both the fire and the water used to douse it. It is for this reason that I take a moment to bring this up. So that people may understand what is, for lack of a better term, a mental illness. Allow me to suggest a wonderful series in the Globe and Mail, perhaps the best collection of stories and first-person recollections on the subject to be found in any newspaper.

I tip my hat to Wallace, to Gray. I mourn for the grief experienced by their loved ones.

Getting Better: Take It Outside

Writing programs, whether they be of the one-day or the week-long-getaway variety, can be good or bad things. In particular, I think anyone who is a closeted writer (ie. short stories and poetry hidden on your computer like pornography) and feels the need to affirm (or reaffirm) their direction should consider - at least as an option - a writing program. Provided you do some research and find a good course, a writing program allows you to unload your craft in front of others, receive honest feedback, and illuminate your shortcomings as well as your strengths.

Of course, there are always risks. Your teacher/mentor may not get along with you at all, for stylistic or personality-related reasons. You could be a poet in a room full of prose writers. You may find your peers to be full of themselves. You may find yourself an unintentional participant in a Self-Congratulations Society, where no one will accept or voice constructive criticism.

I lucked out, to put it briefly

Many years ago, I hooked up with a Toronto-based group, headed by someone who ran a web-based forum for local writers. It was ok. It wasn't what I wanted then, though of course I can articulate it perfectly now. The person coordinating the meeting I attended (and as an aside, being someone who coordinates a couple of groups now, it can be a thankless, dispiriting job) was not, at least on the surface, someone focused on the art or spirit of writing. She seemed more interested in writing events (contests and the like) rather than writing itself. This, I contend, is not wrong, but rather - being the sensitive philosophical type I am - it simply didn't jive with what I wanted. But even this is good, because the more you investigate the more you learn about what you need versus want. As a result of trial-by-error, your desires become less metaphysical and more concrete.

Fast-forward years later...my then-fiancée, Ingrid, who works in publishing, recommended the Humber College School for Writers' Summer Workshop. I had a novel. I didn't know whether it was good or bad, and it wasn't helped that I had no writer friends to bounce it off of for feedback. I looked into the program and decided to attend (financed by American Express). I ended up spending a week in a classroom of eight, with poet/novelist DM Thomas (The White Hotel) as our mentor. It was perfect. I could not have asked for a more seminal experience. Everything clicked. I walked away at the end, having attended seminars, Q&A's, and forums, with a much more evolved viewpoint of both the art and business of writing.

That week I learned to love and respect the art of revising/editing, something I'd always treated like poison. I met some great people who, for the first time, I could actually talk to about writing without having to explain what writing was in order to help them understand me. I was publicly confronted with a then-serious illness (habitually using it's when I should've been using its). I was flattered by the positive feedback I received but not stung or made sullen by honest critiques either.

As a result of that single week, my outlook, philosophy, and activity in writing was immensely deepened. I started a monthly writers' group - the very same sort of group I was searching for in vain before - which carries on successfully to this day (we celebrate our 3rd "birthaversary" this summer, in fact). The novel which had consumed so much of my time back then has since been shelved, having realised that it needed so much work that it was better for me to start from scratch and return to it later (under the axiom, "if you love someone set them free"). Now, of course, I have a new novel which I'm very happy with (along with a nice collection of short stories).

I write this because sometimes - particularly when you are an artist, alone, in an environment seemingly bereft of people who can empathize with what you do - it's important to look outside for that next important step: getting involved so as to help yourself. As writers, we can't allow ourselves to fall into the trap of thinking we are failures if we do not wake up at 5am, complete four chapters by lunch, followed by spending the afternoon staring solemnly out of our 3rd storey "writing nook" windows while we wait for the absinthe to kick in. That's mythology.

I should also mention an extremely good (short) book, called Art & Fear: Observations on the Perils (and Rewards) of Artmaking, by David Bayles and Ted Orland [ISBN: 0961454733]. I recommend it to anyone from any artistic background who is looking for some objective advice, written by people who truly understand. Lastly, even though I mention this book and provide a link to the Humber College course previously, it's just as important for people to discover what's right for themselves - there are many options out there. Please do your research.

On Bad Fiction

A very good discussion was had recently, prompted by an article on lit-blog Ward Six, called "What makes bad fiction bad?". Not only does the article itself reveal some very big culprits, but the comment board continues with some interesting add-ons (and yes, I had to chime in, though I am not the first "Matt" post - I can't get used to typing that. I always used to be the only "Matt" and now I have to share it!).

Enjoy.

Book Review: The Elementary Particles, by Michel Houellebecq

I honestly don't know much about Michel Houellebecq. I typically don't take a lot of interest in the lives of authors (or musicians, artists, etc.). The only reason I came across his name - and thus this book - was browsing the shelves of a local independent bookstore, killing time. I saw his name, which I thought was odd/familiar, and glancing through the several tomes on the shelf I realised that I'd found a rather curious writer: controversial, philosophical, with a tinge of "speculative fiction" about him.

So, with his name in my head, I did some research later and decided to start with an earlier (1998) but well-considered novel, The Elementary Particles, tempted though I was by another book of his, on H.P. Lovecraft no less.

Not one for believing the publicity machine, yet knowing next to nothing about the man as a writer, the blurb on the back cover of Particles compares him to Huxley, Beckett, and Camus. If I may take the liberty of rearranging this, having read the book, I would say - if anything - it's Huxley via Camus. However, to make direct comparisons, though tempting, would be an insult to all involved. Houellebecq is Houellebecq - he's not channelling anyone in his prose. Hark: a unique voice.

The Elementary Particles is a study of the moral murk of modern society, a result, Houellebecq's omniscient narrative posits, of a world that has moved well-past the relevance and supremacy of religion, and in the middle of a phase of rational/scientific investigation. Without the guidance of a supreme set of rules, society embraced a virulent individuality and in doing so eventually begot a generation of spiritual and sexual materialists, beginning in the late 50's. It is the aftermath of this wave which Particles concerns itself.

Meet Michel and Bruno. Michel is an accomplished molecular biologist. Bruno is a civil servant. They are half-brothers, mutually and separately abandoned by their common mother, a libertine and prototype of everything wrong with the "me" generation. Despite his success, Michel is emotionally dead, and at the beginning of the book decides to step away from his position at a prestigious university research department. He remains in his apartment, contemplating his life and inability to feel anything. Bruno on the other hand, is a self-destructive hedonist with no aims or aspirations, aside from pleasuring himself in any way he sees fit.

I know what you're saying: Matt, where can I find this book! It sounds riveting!

Okay. Sarcasm aside, it may seem repellent to some on the surface. I found it repellent at first. And yet, the more I read, the more I wanted to keep reading. Not because it was misanthropic, but because of its philosophical undertow. Houellebecq is making a statement - it's unapologetic, citric, and compelling. Whereas it may seem he paints society with a thick brush, underneath it all - in the structure of the book, and certainly in its eye-raising epilogue - there are layers of fascinating subtlety and important questions which rise in well-crafted crescendos.

To be honest with you, I've been thinking a lot about The Elementary Particles. After I completed it, I wanted to dislike it. I wanted to find faults - and there are faults. There are moments where Houellebecq's prose is extremely dry and clinical (nay acetic), and while it can be justified by certain plot elements, these unnecessarily antithetical flourishes simply didn't make it easier to care about the characters, or the point of the book for that matter. That said, if anything, I have a greater regard for it now than when I read it almost a month ago - it is a book with the power to haunt.

What was particularly difficult for me was that I began reading this book right after Eugene Zamiatin's We. In other words, from a dystopian anti-collective polemic to a dystopian anti-individualist polemic. My head hurts, but I've decided it's a good hurt.

The Elementary Particles, by Michel Houellebecq (ISBN: 978-0375727016) is available at an independent bookstore near you, or online at various retailers. Note: this review is based upon the English translation by Frank Wynne.

Science Fiction, or, Children of a Lesser Genre

I caught an entry on the popular literary blog/magazine Book Ninja, highlighting an article by writer Clive Thompson, revealingly titled "Why Sci-Fi Is the Last Bastion of Philosophical Writing". I wanted to respond on Book Ninja, but I realised that I wasn't responding to the article so much as forking the argument in an unrelated direction. That, and, well, when I tried posting my response the bloody "security phrase" was wrong and when I clicked the Back button on my browser my eloquent, finely-crafted response was gone. Consider this a means of channelling my sorrow.

Thompson contends that the strength of science fiction over so-called "literary fiction" is that the latter, in regards to ideas, has become so mired in everyday realism that it's become less interesting as a result.

While that is debatable, there's a bit which I thought contentious:

"So, then, why does sci-fi, the inheritor of this intellectual tradition, get short shrift among serious adult readers? Probably because the genre tolerates execrable prose stylists. Plus, many of sci-fi's most famous authors — like Robert Heinlein and Philip K. Dick — have positively deranged notions about the inner lives of women."

Firstly, let me get the following off my chest: I hate the term "science fiction". [Note: Thompson rubs salt in this irritation by including dragons into the mix. Dragons? Methinks he has his genres confused]. "Science fiction" is a left-brained label which conjures 50's-era Youth Adventure stories with rocket ships and lasers. In other words, the connotation of "science fiction" is that it is a lesser, more utilitarian form of fiction than the hallowed halls of "literary fiction". Nothing could be further from the truth. Of course, you can't blame people for thinking this when they step into the Science Fiction section of their neighbourhood Book Behemoth. Row upon row of monochromatic, serialised "space and laser" stories. Blame the capitalists, I say. If you're a publisher and you know that 16-year old kids will devour clichés so long as they involve space travel, you won't care about quality.

However, to directly address Thompson's contention, I would like to know how "execrable prose" and "deranged notions of women" are the sole providence of science fiction? Are we talking about a genetic disorder from which our precious "literary fiction" is immune? Are you telling me that one is cleaner than the other - do you really want to go there, Thompson? Eh?

I do stand in agreement though: science fiction (for lack of a better term) historically represents the bleeding edge of philosophy. What people who shun the genre don't realise is that it often transpires without a space ship, laser, or tight-pantaloon'd woman in sight. Need I mention the likes of Stanislaw Lem, Eugene Zamiatin, or the Strugatsky Brothers? Some of the greatest sci-fi writers produced their best-known work under political tyranny (it should be stated: the one convenient thing about writing in a genre that the establishment doesn't take seriously is that one can communicate vast, revolutionary ideas without getting caught).

What bugs me is that when authors of "literary fiction" dip into the conceits of science fiction, there is often praise for their bold move (as if they were writing in a foreign language), yet - outside the likes of William Gibson - there is scant recognition for the science fiction author who transcends the confines (or expectations) of his or her genre.

In truth, as a writer, I'm torn between the gravitational pulls of both "literary fiction" and "science fiction". I think an otherworldliness can make the everyday more captivating for the reader, but it takes skill to balance both so that you're neither stretching believability nor betraying the wonder of the other by miring it in mundanity. I respect both strains of fiction yet I consider it tragic that so many good books and stories remain unread because of nothing more than a problem in perception.

How To Measure Progress When Not Much Is Really Changing

I'm a fiction writer.

This is what I tell people, which is often followed by digging my fingernails into my palms, hoping they don't ask me if-

"Have you been published?"

No. The answer is no. And no, you can't tell them that a poem you wrote in high school was published in the local paper - you're over 30 and nearly twice the age of that (wonderfully talented) kid.

"Um...not yet."

This is about as affirmative as it gets. It's like telling someone you're a bus driver, and when they ask a perfectly normal question like "Oh, where? For what company?", you reply: "Actually, I'm not driving a bus right now...I'm hoping that someone will allow me to drive a bus soon.".

I'm a bus driver without a bus, albeit with a route of sorts and sufficient credentials to do the work without injuring passengers (save for their sensibilities at times). I'll let that analogy fizzle like a wet campfire. Needless to say, telling people you're a fiction writer without having anything to show in terms of published work, one feels like an impostor after a while. Gladly, writers naturally feel like impostors so it's not that bad.

The reality is not quite as depressing as it appears ^tm. I've only been at this seriously for a few years, having spent a few years before that working on a novel which I ultimately decided to shelve, lest I spend years more perfecting something I'd outgrown and was really tired of staring at. Since then, I've crafted several solid short stories and have started a new novel. The more I work on short stories, the more improvements I see in my writing overall which then reflects in the novel. It's a nice arrangement, save for the fact that the time/energy I devote to the short stories are subtracted from what's going toward the book.

My strategy is that the short stories - the good ones, not the ones I hand people and preface with "It's an experiement!" - are "easier" to get published, if only because they require less time to write/revise than a novel. Thus, with some sort of publishing precedent, it would be easier to attract a publisher for the novel.

Of course, I've yet to have anything of note published. I'm trying to keep at least two submissions outbound at all times, but even that's tricky because you want to gear the right type of story (stylistically, etc.) to a publisher who will be most receptive to what you're offering. Add to this that waiting for acceptance or rejection (the latter being all the rage these days) can take anywhere from 3 weeks to 6 months with ethical penalties if you submit the same piece to more than one publisher at a time. So, let's say you spend two months on a short story - from ink on the page (I still do my rough drafts by hand) to "rev. #12f" on my laptop. If the publisher you submit to (assuming, like what happened to me and the magazine Maisonneuve, the post office doesn't return it claiming they can't find the address) takes 3 months to get back to you, that's almost half a year spent with no dividends to show (aside from the aforementioned improvements in your writing, which, when you receive a rejection letter, isn't very compelling at all).

Fun.

Yet, if I didn't think my work was good, I wouldn't bother. If I didn't see improvements in my skill, I wouldn't bother. I have to remind myself that, although I don't have anything to show for my efforts as regards to getting published, I do have the work itself, which is no small accomplishment by anyone's measurement. In any case, it's all I have at the moment - that and will.

And the moniker, "fiction writer".

Translation, Traducción, and перевод

I used to hang-out in cafés when I was in my early twenties. It was a means to get out of the house without going to bars. Chances were, the conversations were better in cafés, and - depending upon the type of café - the people were usually a little more sophisticated [why writing that word feels like an elitist thing, I'm not sure - is there something wrong with sophistication?]. Most of all, cafés are cheaper than bars, and when you're in college and starving, it made sense to choose the former if you wanted to avoid the bottleneck of debt.

There was a place in Burlington (Ontario, sorry Vermont) which lasted perhaps only a year (as all good things die early in Burlington, including the dreams of its youth...but I digress). I can't even remember the name - French, I think. The owner was a very interesting fellow, an accomplished academic who'd lived and studied in Paris previously. I'm not sure how he managed to afford a café in the middle of a very chi chi shopping square, but he made the best of it: poetry readings, live music, parties. It was all very fin de siècle; nothing like that can live for very long in a town as complacent and suburban as Burlington was at the time.

I remember one afternoon, sitting with him (his name escapes me...so much of the years from 1990 -> 1995 escape me), and chatting. The topic arose of translation. He revealed that he wrote about the aesthetics and potential controversies of translation. Can you imagine having a book published about translation? I couldn't then - it was something I simply took for granted and sometimes still do. The more we talked, the more I realised how much blind trust we put in the hands of the person whose job it is to convert the prose of the world's great non-English-speaking writers. It never crosses our minds that a translator could be culturally prejudiced, or simply unimaginative for that matter.

Let's face it: when I recently read Crime and Punishment I didn't hesitate to think that I was reading anything but the prose of Fyodor Dostoevsky. But, of course, it was a translation. I can only assume it was accurate, not that I would have any way to tell as I only have an elementary understanding of Cyrillic (let alone Russian). What is astounding to me, is to think of how effortless and transparent the best translations are - when I consider the acrobatics some of them must go through in order to preserve the magic of the original text (the rhythm, the flow, the style, the weight, the economy) I always conclude that it must be such a rewarding and paradoxically unheralded role to play. Who translated the copy of Crime and Punishment that I just finished reading? Couldn't tell you. I didn't look.

This was brought to my attention most recently, and most magically, with the appearance of the book The Master and Margarita in my life. I was speaking with a Russian composer one day, relating how much I enjoyed speculative fiction from former-Soviet countries (Stanislaw Lem, the Strugatsky brothers...) when he mentioned, "Have you read Master and Margarita, by Bulgakov?". "Who??" was my response. Let's face it, Bulgakov is not a name etched in the collective memory of popular literature. "You must read Master and Margarita." was all he said, with that particularly curt Slavic insistence which intones the inherent universal importance of whatever it is that's being recommended, without question. So, I went on my laptop and did some searching - what I found was that there were, at last count, five English translations of the book.

Five.

As it turned-out, one was based on the censored Soviet text, another was marked as simply not in-depth enough, with three more ranging in response from capable to great. So - aware of the inherent importance of translation and having my curiosity piqued by the book itself - I did more research and found that the most recent translation had been done in 2006 by a fellow Canadian, Michael Karpelson (highlighted in this article from an otherwise obscure right-wing news site). To make a long story short, this translation was self-published through LuLu.com and was off-line due to small revisions Karpelson wanted to make. I ended up getting his email address from LuLu and contacted him directly - he was very nice and offered to sell me a copy from the existing print run. By the time I received it, I had no less than five other people, without prompting, ask whether I'd read the book. Talk about destiny.

So, for the Michael Karpelson's of the literary world, without whom authors as diverse as Camus, Marquez, Borges, and the Dalai Lama would have no means to speak to English-speaking readers, I raise a toast of appreciation.

[note: I will have a proper review of The Master and Margarita within the next week or so]

Book Review: Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoevsy

Rodion Raskolnikov, an impoverished ex-student living in St. Petersburg, methodically sets out to kill a money-lender. As if that isn't bad enough, the cold-blooded murder goes terribly wrong, and - being a man of principle - he endures a multitude of agonies associated with his crime. Erstwhile, his mother and sister are moving to the city in preparation for his sister's just-announced engagement to an ambitious cad.

All in all, it's not a good time to be Rodya Raskolnikov, or for that matter, to live in St. Petersburg during the late 1800's.

Crime and Punishment, completed in 1866, is a brooder of a book. It looks unsparingly at the lives of the desperate and destitute - comprising most its central characters - and sends them in circles around a very lonely and philosophically distraught young man who makes a terrible decision: murder. It isn't made in haste, but meticulously planned and carried out until the act itself is within his grasp, at which point it explodes in his face. Rather than empowerment, to be "a man and not a louse" in Raskolnikov's words, he comes face to face with reality: his less-empowered and certainly more human inadequacies.

The problem, however, is that the police aren't after him...or are they? He tries several times early in the novel to expose his crime, but barely arouses suspicion - if anything, people around him grow more and more concerned for his health. The irony is that it's after Raskolnikov's crime when everyone around him starts paying him visits and taking care of him - even though half the time he's flirting with madness and fever. It is during this purgatorial reprieve from justice - with the police as close as his friends - that he is drawn into the lives of those around him and takes pains to emancipate the weak from their burdens.

Characters sad and corrupt walk into his life, often literally, and draw him into their own. Vacillating between pity, outrage, and spiritual agony, Raskolnikov takes great pains to make amends with those around him, sensing that the payment for his earlier crime is hanging inevitably in front of him, whatever turn he takes. After all, if the noose is in the mind, there are no lands you can escape to.

Crime and Punishment has many strengths, chief among them some of the best dialogue in literature. Surprisingly, there are great swaths of humour too, most notably Raskolnikov's friend, Razumikhin - who becomes smitten with Rodya's sister, the ravishing Avdotya. Dostoevsky, who spent four years as a political prisoner prior to writing C&P, writes honestly about the souls of those who are defeated by the circumstances of life. The city to which the book is seemingly dedicated - albeit in a poison pen fashion - St. Petersburg, comes across as a Gothic cesspool of poverty and corruption.

If there are drawbacks to Crime and Punishment it is the bleak hues in which the story is rendered. Although it is ultimately a book about the greatest aspect of humanity - fiery perseverance - there a number of parts that move at a snail's pace. In particular, I found the fourth chapter (of six) to be burdensome. I say this in case anyone would take me for a masochist.

Still, I recommend Crime and Punishment to those wanting to pick-up the classics, particularly those from Eastern Europe. In Rodion Raskolnikov, Dostoevsky has created a template of the tortured idealist that stands as tall now as it did in 1866.

Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoevsky (ISBN: 019 281549 0) is available at a friendly independent bookstore near you. Or online at any number of vendors

The Steppenwolf Effect, pt.2: Books, Covers, and Judgement

####

Achtung: it seems Comments were disabled on this and another post recently. This was not intentional. I will try to be more diligent in making sure that visitors can respond (when Blogger will allow).

####

One thing I wanted to mention, way back when I was in Steppenwolf mode (see here), was that book covers have come a long way since I was a kid.

Let me put it this way, if you have a faint interest in reading, let's say, Pride and Prejudice (figuring that you hadn't seen any of the filmed adaptations, but simply heard good things), what would go through your head when you saw this:

Let me guess: the most boring book in the world? Tedium personified? 300 pages about drollness?

Of course that's not true. Most people who've read P&P consider it a classic. People get into arguments about its film/TV adaptations, which is a good sign that the book rules over them all. But the cover! The cover stinks! Let's face it, this is not a cover intended to sell a book, it's a cover intended to put you to sleep (unless you are a Victorian fetishist).

Now, you say, look here chap - don't you know you shouldn't judge a book by its cover? Yes. I agree. But why bother having an illustration on the cover, or some semblance of design if it does nothing for what it represents? The only reason Jane Austen allows that cover on her book is that she's dead and there's nothing she can do about it.

Quite frankly, I prefer this as an alternative, if I had the choice:

Why?

Because it doesn't fill me with preconceived notions about the subject matter.

If I wanted to read P&P, the above cover wouldn't stop me from doing so. I'd be forced to read it in order to find out if I liked it or not, without the mediation of what is often for "classic literature" terrible book design.

This is why Steppenwolf figures into this story. Check out the cover that I grew up looking at:

While yes, technically it incorporates many of the elements of the book, it's such a literal and terribly dated approach, it's always turned me off. It's a James Bond poster by way of Aldous Huxley. *Blech* - no thank you.

Now, when I finally picked up a copy last year, this is what I saw on the shelf:

It's a book! It's a book! Not a movie, not an illustrated story, but a book, with an author! I like this approach because it's direct yet cryptic at the same time - it's telling me nothing about the novel, yet ties in the title of the book with a visual artifact. That's it. Nothing more. Aside from the synopsis on the back cover, you're on your own.

To me - and I should tread carefully here because my wife happens to design books - this is what book design is about. Forget about "don't judge a book by its cover" - that's a nice aphorism as it applies to people, but to books - considering there are so many vying for our attention, the covers should support the material they...um...cover.

If you've got a moment, check out this f-a-n-t-a-s-t-i-c site which shows all of the major cover designs of HG Wells' The War of the Worlds. That is, from 1898 to the present, from different countries and featuring a vast array of designs and interpretations. It gives you a fascinating look at how book design has evolved over the decades.

The Steppenwolf Effect, pt.1: Synchronicity

As mentioned in my previous post, a couple of things occurred to me while I started reading Steppenwolf.

As mentioned in a previous previous post (here), I write fiction. I've written one novel and have since completed the rough draft of a second. When I started reading Steppenwolf I realised (at the point where Harry meets Hermine ¹) that it shared a parallel storyline with my second novel.

I clearly remember starting to sweat, followed by some muffled swearing.

If there was anything that freaked me out at the time, it was the fear that I was going to open a book (whether it be a novel or a collection of short stories) to discover that something I've written had been, as they say, "done before". In retrospect there isn't much reason for this fear - unless one is directly influenced by something it would be a hell of a coincidence to write something that was so similar to a previously published work that you should have to worry - particularly if it's something as complex and individualistic as a novel.

But I was concerned; I thought to myself: F*!king bastard Hermann Hesse and his f$~king storylines. But I digress...

I turned to my writing group ². I asked them: has anyone opened a book to discover some freak-assed psychic parallel to something you're currently working on? The answer, surprisingly, was yes - all the time, in fact. Synchronicity happens more often than we think, as it turns out.

Thinking about it, it makes sense; assuming we aren't forced to read the books that we do (as in school) we end up reading those works which appeal to us - as readers and perhaps subconsciously as writers also. So it should come as no surprise to find narratives, plots, or characters that ring familiar.

1. Harry & Hermine sounds like the name of a Hollywood adaptation.

2. I'm blessed to have such a good writer's group - most of us were students of DM Thomas at the Humber College School for Writers.

Book Review: Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, by Ludwig Wittgenstein

4.003    Most propositions and questions, that have been written about philosophical matters, are not false, but senseless. We cannot, therefore, answer questions of this kind at all, but only state their senselessness. Most questions and propositions of the philosophers result from the fact that we do not understand the logic of our language.
(They are of the same kind as the question whether the Good is more or less identical than the Beautiful.)
And so it is not to be wondered at that the deepest problems are really no problems.

I've been promising this review for some time. The problem has been - since this is a book not of philosophy but about philosophy - I've needed time for it to sink in. Furthermore, as much as I hate prefacing my opinion (or anyone else doing the same), due to the nature of this book I feel it fair to say a few words: I'm not an academic who specializes in philosophy. I do not have the names and concepts of all the world's great thinkers at my fingertips. As such, I tackled this book as a reasonably intelligent layman. What I have to say about it should be seen through this particular lens. This is not a dissertation and most certainly this is not an academic exercise. So there.

Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico Philosophicus though only clocking-in at a svelte 108 pages, is a monster of a book. It is a perception-altering, densely laid treatise that attempts to clarify not a particular theory per se, but rather, pulls its focus back to comment upon the very scaffolding of philosophical understanding itself.

The way Wittgenstein sees it, there are too many fundamental errors and/or assumptions that sabotage philosophical propositions before they're even written down on paper. The key is to first lay down exactly what a sound proposition is and to understand it in its elemental form. Technically, linguistically, even mathematically Wittgenstein has taken his understanding of what makes a philosophical proposition sound and distilled into a dense uber-logical lexicon.

It's a fascinating (if insufferably semantic) approach: each point and sub-point are laid down like a revolutionary manifesto:

4.023    The proposition determines reality to this extent, that one only needs to say "Yes" or "No" to it to make it agree with reality.
Reality must therefore be completely described by the proposition.
A proposition is the description of a fact.
As the description of an object describes it by its external properties so propositions describe reality by its internal properties.
The proposition constructs a world with the help of a logical scaffolding, and therefore one can actually see in the proposition all the logical features possessed by reality if it is true. One can draw conclusions from a false proposition

Wittgenstein is intent on defining the way in which we attempt to interpret the world rather than the specifics of content. Wittgenstein's reverence for the power and importance of how language is utilized in articulating the world is infectious. His approach, however, requires careful reading. I will be honest in saying that it's difficult to review such a book without having spent a number of weeks re-reading it, making notes, checking out other people's feelings about it, etc.. I have not had the time to do this, and have only managed to read Tractatus twice - however, I will say that while the first reading was a slog in the mud, during the second reading things became suddenly more clear and fascinating.

Who should read this book? Anyone interested in expanding their practical and theoretical understanding of language and logic. While Tractatus is dense and unsparing to the casual reader, those who give Wittgenstein's treatise the time and effort it deserves will undoubtedly walk away richer for the experience (if not wiser). If Aristotle wrote the book on metaphysics, then Wittgenstein has written the book on metaphilosophy.

Tractatus Logico Philosophicus (ISBN 0-486-40445-5) is available at a fine independent bookstore near you. Also available online at various merchants. Note: this review is based upon the 1999 Dover republication (using the translation by C.K. Ogden, which is thought to be the definitive text).

Book Review: Moby Dick, by Herman Melville

You may be asking yourself: "Moby Dick, eh? Not exactly current fiction, Mr. Blogger."

No, it's not. But if it's good, it should be read. This is a good book. It's a classic ¹.

Published in 1851 (happy 155th anniversary!), Moby Dick is an originally rendered tale told by Ishmael (whose last name we never know...in fact, we never learn the full names of any of the characters), a young veteran of the merchant marines who longs to find work (and a new life) on a whaling vessel. Naturally, his interests take him to Nantucket, Massachusetts, where he finds a ship waiting to sail - the Pequod. With the help of an exotic tattooed harpooner, Queequeg, he hops aboard willingly, despite the warnings of a street prophet regarding the Pequod's captain - Ahab.

Once aboard and sailing, the narrative eventually inverts from the wide-eyed first-person accounts of the opening to third-person, peppered with Ishmael's astute observations - it's clear from this narrative transformation that Ishmael himself becomes subsumed by his experiences at sea aboard the Pequod, obsessed with the details of her crew and captain, and with the object of their profession: whaling.

The problem begins soon after setting sail; Ahab, a remarkably bleak and forceful figure, announces that - contrary to their practical purpose - they have an ultimate quest ahead: to find and kill the White Whale, Moby Dick. This single whale, we learn, is the burning flame which drives the Pequod's captain to "monomaniacal" ends, Moby Dick having claimed Ahab's leg (and perhaps a part of his soul) on a previous voyage.

As the novel proceeds, the reader is consumed by the everyday life of a whaler at sea: the sometimes savage danger, the simple yet sublime pleasures, and the technologies of the day. Everyone from the sail-mast lookout to the blacksmith, from the cook to the boatsmen who trawl for prey - whales, and most importantly, their precious oil - are drawn in colourful detail. Readers expecting a fast-moving plot line should note that Moby Dick takes great pains to paint the seafarer's life, specifically the dying years of the whaling industry (at least as it existed in its heyday); as such the novel has its peaks and valleys as regards pacing. I refuse to take the "this is an old book so you have to disregard its old style" stance - though it's a masterpiece, its strengths will only be rewarding to those with a little patience.

Moby Dick is probably one of the best-written novels I've read. Melville is a writer's writer; he loves language and is very particular about how he describes the life of his characters without it becoming an academic exercise, nor are the allegorical elements cryptically depicted so as to make reading it in a non-allegorical frame of mind impossible. Take any of Ahab's monologues and read it aloud: you will instantly notice the cadence and perfect shape of the sentences - it's like hearing Shakespeare. The book is rife with symbolism: the ship is the world, the crew its people. Moby Dick itself becomes a symbol of the capricious result of the burgeoning 20th-century-man's fateful need to conquer nature.

I would like to point out that I read the paperback edition, published by Oxford University Press (pictured above). I mention this in particular for two reasons: it's cheap (500+ pages = $10!), and it comes with a handy reference guide at the back to clarify any directly symbolic (Biblical or simply antiquarian) references in the text. Also, there is an Introduction (written by Tony Tanner) which, after you've read the novel ², will give you some insight into some of the mainstream analyses of the book. There is also a set of letters Melville wrote to Nathaniel Hawthorne (to whom the novel was dedicated) at the back of this edition - can't say there's anything relevatory there, other than the fact that Melville clearly idolised Hawthorne.

Moby Dick is available for sale at a fine independent bookstore near you and online at...Powell's, Amazon, Chapters, and others. Published by Oxford University Press (ISBN: 0192833855)

1. I don't mean "It's a classic." in the sense that, because everyone calls certain books "classics" that they must always be superior. Some "classics" do not age well. This is not one of those.

2. This is my guide to reading "classic" books: by all means avoid anything written by someone other than the original author until after you've read the book, whether it be an introduction, a foreword, a preface, what have you. Most introductions are academic in nature and worse, full of spoilers. Stanislaw Lem wrote a book, inspired by his distaste for these after-the-fact literary addons. It's called Imaginary Magnitude.