The American greats, and Oprah

When Oprah added William Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury to her bookclub list as a summer read, said bookclub gulped and shrivelled in the path of The Establishment's raucous laughter. The plebs fell for it and sales of books by Faulkner increased (I know because I sold a few to unwitting fans of Marianne Keyes and Jodi Picoult). This was after the James Frey A Million Little Pieces, which he sold as memoir but was really almost entirely made up, and the 'almost entirely' is debatable.

This introduction is a red herring, but now you know that I know what I'm talking about. To add to your store of Oprah trivia, her bookclub really did shrivel (maybe not gulp). (Although it did come to life again a few years ago. Because, this is Oprah.) Put those two facts together, bind them with logic, and you realise Oprah rarely actually read the books she touted - they were chosen by assistants and publishers' publicists. (What they were thinking when they included Faulkner is a mystery.)

I recently tried to read The Sound and the Fury, but read no further than three pages (read being a misnomer: I daydreamed through three pages - I cannot remember a thing). I don't abandon books after I have committed to them, ever. Even Atomised, and that was at least as traumatising as something I saw in the supermarket the other day (and which shall forever remain wordless, so don't even ask).

Oprah generalised that 'Faulkner is the greatest American writer, like, ever' (sure, along with Hemingway, Twain, Poe, Steinbeck, McCarthy...). But I would imagine even the most stalwart Faulkner fan would harbour a teensy bit of bitterness at having to work so hard to read for fun. I felt that, at present, the only author deserving of that degree of effort is James Joyce. (We have a tempestuous relationship. He channels through the book on my dresser and I ignore his cursing.) He was using up my time with Joyce, even though I haven't so much as picked up the cursed (har!) book in six months (I was polishing the furniture).

Imagine if Oprah had nominated The Odyssey... Now there is a book to bury a bookclub near to the centre of the earth.

Having said this, I am a Faulkner fan (and a Joyce fan - I swear I will finish that book one day, you Irishman!). As I Lay Dying is on my list of books that will haunt me for life. Ok, no, it is silly to lay claim to choices in your future. It haunts me and I hope it haunts me for life (at least because there are way worse types of ghosts to be haunted by... Actual ghosts, for example). In two sentences, the characters sum up the world for me in a Cormac McCarthy-worthy musing:

"It takes two people to make you, and one people to die. That's how the world is going to end."

The book is set in the American south, among a po' family, the matriarch of which has just died. The novel tells of the the family's efforts to arrange her funeral, which chiefly consist of couriering her body on the farm's wagon to another, more affluent part of the family. Really (because this is how literature works), it is about the relationships between the characters, how they live, their relationships with the matriarch and the wisdom that comes from being po'.

That last bit is facetious, but Rousseau's Noble Savage is still alive and well, just now living in shacks constructed from the cardboard of cellphone ads. Faulkner can be forgiven, by historicity, but what is our excuse?

To climb up that tree of great American authors (figuratively, because I tried to climb a tree the other day and found I no longer have the muscles), Faulkner inspires the work of Toni Morrison, the sun of Oprah's universe together with Maya Angelou and her dogs. We studied Morrison every. single. year. of my degree, largely because one of our lecturers was Obsessed with her. Because of this I can name every novel she has ever written, have read them, and know that she is a frightening woman who use to be an editor at Faber & Faber and now terrifies undergrads.

I would sell organs to be terrifying. Or to work at Faber & Faber (I would even volunteer my services as a fridge-cleaner. Someone would see the obsessive way I scrubbed at stains hidden under shelves and would know me for a perfectionist and would let me edit manuscripts so they could take the credit and I would be happy).

Morrison's characters are almost exclusively Southern, African-American, discriminated against, they discriminate against and tattooed with mythology. Slavery, chauvinism, racism, all the meaty -isms. Her novels are uplifting and inspiring, and (I'm going to be serious now) brilliant. Songs of Solomon is my favourite and Paradise my least favourite. Where Faulkner plays devil's advocate, Morrison pursues abuse single-mindedly, creating her own mythologies.

Now, along the way up that greatness tree, we missed two brown-tipped offshoots (like that of the bamboo in my bathroom), titled Zora Neale Hurston and Carson McCullers. I am starting to feel like I am trailing in Oprah's shadow - Oprah ('s assistant) picked books from both authors for her bookclub. In fact, Hurston is (allegedly) her favourite author. Huh, perhaps I and The Establishment have been overly judgemental. Though, still, Faulkner?

Carson McCullers has featured on this blog, more than once, so for equality's sake (it's election day!), let's stick to Hurston. I read Their Eyes were Watching God a couple of months ago, set in... if you have been reading carefully, you, you can guess... yes, the American south, that muddy well of discrimination and abuse (drinking game: take a shot every time this post uses 'discrimination' or 'abuse'. Or 'southern'. Or 'and') and muddied vowels. In this book, the abuse is persistent but limited to the background.

Written in the vernacular (like As I Lay Dying), the novel tells the story (a secondhand account of her telling of the story) of a woman from her childhood to the death of her husband. Based on your cultural dips into Faulkner and Morrison, you expect a certain theme and for a while Hurston gives it to you, until she begins to channel Faulkner, and soon we know that we are all abusing one another, which makes for another less than uplifting tale, but a poignant one.

Zora Neale Hurston, not on Oprah...

At this point, I am wondering why I have read so many of the American greats, when the first great South African title I think of is Cry the Beloved Country (partly because it is long and long equals great, obviously) and authors are Nadine Gordimer and Andre Brink (neither of whom write... enjoyable fiction). (JM Coetzee? This is one of the few instances where man and work deserve to be equated. In short, there is no need to bolster his egoism by acknowledging him.) Oh, and a couple of Fugard's workshopped plays.

(Please don't redirect me to African fiction, because Chinua Achebe is about as close to Nadine Gordimer as spaghetti is to curry.)

While I want to tell you that I am replacing my to-read list with South African greats, to rectify this situation, I would be lying, and why lie in cyberspace? Every culture seems to have an inflection in its writing, some style that is unique. American fiction is vast, given its very nature as a land of immigrants made up of many states. These four authors have been chosen, by me (and Oprah), artificially, by the links I make between them. And perhaps the same could be said for Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, Calvino and Eco, Marquez and Bolano.

South African fiction, especially the political works - sometimes it feels like they're all political - is dry. Metaphors are like kites tied to a fence, like wallflowers that can't dance, like colours mixed into a muddy brown. These works remind me of the Karoo, which I think of fondly but would not live there. When I read, I want to be tossed around, not by emotion, but by the acrobatics of the words. I read to read. To consume the experience and feel bloated with it - and the only way a plot can catch up is to jump and freefall.

We don't have an Oprah (I don't have a TV, but no, whatsherface who used to have an afternoon show on SABC 3 does not count), so there is no one to nominate setworks for the nation to read over the December holidays. If we did, what would she pick? Disgrace? Confessions of a Gambler? Agaat? Fiela se Kind? Maybe Coetzee would admit that his fiction is actually straight-up memoir. We definitely need an Oprah.

As She Climbed Across the Table

Bear with me, folks. I have two very unlikely books to compare, and I'm sitting in the sun on an autumn Sunday mor- - midday, and if I stand the cat will claim my cushion and I won't have the heart to move him. Keep me company, because days spent contemplating in the sun are best shared, in silence.

Speaking of silence... That Tome of Silence, Agaat (it's there, to your left, under 'today's read') where the diacritics are plentiful and so are the pages (metaphorically speaking, since I'm reading on Kindle), but the plot is not. This is not a spoiler, but a warning. At least one of the characters has the symptoms of clinical depression and no personality left to anchor herself. By turns, the farm that is the setting (Groetmoedersdrift - Google translate that one out) is a metaphor for the protagonist's... reality... and for relationships on the farm and perhaps in general.

And herein lies my real gripe with South African literature. It takes itself too seriously. 'Serious' being the operative root word here. As if it is intent on revealing the truth about humanity, in a world in which truth is undecipherable.

Deja vu.

That's the cue. As She Climbed Across the Table by Jonathan Lethem. I picked it up to ward off the spreading depression in the soil of the Western Cape that is 'Greet Mother's Drift'. And finished it in a few hours. I may have mentioned that I dislike the tongue-in-cheek playground of contemporary literary fiction that attempts to disguise the cynical seriousness with which it is written - a protective critique before the critics spot it. But some authors have a style that forgives this.

Perhaps its forced metaphors are tolerable because it is short. The metaphors? Can you guess? The principles of physics and quantum physics, forced into the shape of people and relationships and even settings. Ugh, how the physicists must hate us writers. (They must hate Ian McEwan the most, for his empathetic critique of their critique of our critiques in Solar. It's the lowest hand in any argument: empathising with the other person, so they aren't sure whether it's genuine or not, which the first person knows, because they're being empathetic.)

But Lethem's novel fits more comfortably than van Niekerk's does. There is a scene at the end of Possession by AS Byatt in which she observes, basically and probably badly paraphrased, that post-modernists (meaning me and every other BA student) crave to simply cease to be, to dissipate, to go gently into that good night. Right there is the sum of my desperate scrabbling, which made me stop for a second to nod.

Because, as all those tongue-in-cheek-to-catch-us-out authors are trying to express, here is a piece of science that embodies our conundrum: the world seems to be real - to possess 'truth' - but it is not. Take your moral relativity and subjective realities, pour some paraffin on them and light it. Perhaps you realise that you are replacing one paradigm with another to be able to live (because our minds need it - and that's the human condition), and perhaps not. But think of the word 'truth', think of the word 'real', and no matter how much you twist them, they are bonded to objectivity.

And here comes the inevitable 'there was this study...' I'm not asserting the 'truth' of it, only that it is a good display of my point. There was this study at some university (has anyone ever made that connection with 'universe'?) into how we make everyday decisions - reaching out for a glass of water, taking a step down one path and not another. They recorded at what level and in what sequence decisions are made in. They found that the instinctive, automatic part of the brain is triggered first, and you begin moving before the rational, supposedly decision-making part of the brain kicks in. That, in essence, you justify decisions on a conscious level in retrospect.

Paradigm. Oh I hear your chorus of hooting. Simmer down, I disclaimed myself first - look above.

Study or not, paranoia or not (and what post-modernist isn't?), your subjective reality is controlled by a part of the brain that does not consult you. Does that sound like something you really want to hold too tightly on to? You might want to check with it before your answer. Maybe by Ouija Board.

All I'm really saying here (and this goes out particularly to the physicists) is that the quantum realm offers us hope. It would give us a definitive answer. Hope. The option of dissipating into tiny particles. But also, of knowing for sure. Because despite my argument and those of my fellow writers, and in part alliance with - we don't know. Our language says there are things that are true and real, but our experience says not. So which is it? We just want to know. Even as we spit on knowledge and trample it.

I cannot relate to Agaat because (apart from the constant whinging) the characters have realities and we can see them and we can see the misunderstandings, and even though each does things they cannot rationally justify, they remain blithely unaware of the effusiveness of any kind of truth - in the moment - but justify these irrational moments in hindsight to make another complete story. An evolving one.

To me, it reads as a Romantic story - as in that era of human history where Luther has questioned religion and that question has kept rolling, on and on, with each rotation pulling up the scabs of societies' paradigms. Forcing some backlashes, some projections, some truces - in Romanticism, the transcendent was forced to earth to imbue everything that human beings have not touched. (The Modernists did the same, but with less babbling, and with more cynicism. That I get.)

Round and round the question rolls, even though my fellow writers and I like to believe we have stopped it in mid-rotation. And in a sense, in a moment that is shorter than the speed of light, we have. We have stopped it to look at it, but we are no wiser than we were before. Cynicism is a kneejerk reaction to the desecration of something you hold dear. (I know this well; I work in publishing.) It is an insufficient response to the world, but the only one that keeps us safe from being hurt again.

Agaat

Why do we (young South Africans) dislike reading our own literature? That's a generalisation. Many of the young 'uns whom I know. Because it is about past, not our present into which the past is woven. Again, a generalisation. What about Zakes Mda? I enjoy Andre Brink but dislike JM Coetzee - the man and his work - intensely (don't get me started). Now, here I am, delving into Agaat by Marlene van Niekerk (Kindle tells me I am 9% of the way - this means little to me though, I miss page numbers).

Thumbs up or down, I like to imagine you wondering, literally clinging to the edge of your seat. Don't disillusion me.

Let's get to specifics here. I managed about fifty pages of A Story of an African Farm before I placed it beside my bed and then on a bookshelf. What is it? The style? The subject matter? South African literature, to me, feels awkward, stilted, heavy with symbolism, with little relief. The stories are often manufactured and not enjoyable. Although I have argued differently before - why read a story without a plot? Perhaps Aristotle and Joseph Campbell were correct? Why else spend leisure time in someone else's world? (This doesn't bode well for me and my novel.)

I feel the same about contemporary North American literary fiction. Twisted into itself, moral tales, a game of academic critique. Maybe also because these are realities that I know, whether living them or watching them on big and small screens. Maybe I need distance to be able to face a story's moral tale - because, honestly, isn't there always some kind of symbolic warning? That's just how our brains work, folks, like it or not (always preaching my own paranoid doomsday tale of consciousness - dammit, and so it goes round and round and round).

Thumbs up! There you go! I threw it in here, sans reference to the book title, hoping you'll miss it as you scan down the page.

Perhaps it was the hype that attracted me - I enjoy translations, to wade through the logic of a language literally made foreign - I have been meaning to read Agaat (written originally in Afrikaans) since it was published. I have even taken it out from the library a couple of times, and stared at its very serious bulk, intimidated, before returning it. The Kindle version is far less intimidating (I yell in defence of my betrayal of the printed book - the very thing from which I make a living!).

Somewhere between high school and now, the desperate attempts of my Grade 11 Afrikaans teacher (truly desperate, she once told us we were horrible and left the classroom crying) sunk in. Afrikaans demonstrates meaning, it doesn't just present it; it embodies things that we don't have translations for in English; it has a different poetry, melody, physicality; it holds its own story of past and present tightly, while as an English South African, it sometimes feels as though I have no past - only a present and a future, here, in a country I love. That's it, too - it has loved this place for as long as it has existed.

In varsity, we were taught that new media has something in common with newspaper journalism, for a different reason: readers reading on screen scan, so serve them the who, what, where, when, why and how up front, in the first paragraph. It differs though, in that you should keep something back for the conclusion - something to keep this allegedly lazy reader reading. My posts ignore these 'rules' (I scoff at rules in this new realm of expression) and let you hang on (on my every word...?), hoping you'll bear with me to the end.

My point? My point is that I have a point, but I need to warm up before I find it. The translator, Michiel Heyns, no doubt in consultation with the author, has carried some of the conventions of Afrikaans into English, sometimes making the prose a syrupy river to wade through, but in others translating the physicality of a language, for which English has no equivalents. I am speaking (writing) specifically of the stresses: é and è. 'Thére,' she writes, and I know the character is nodding or pointing, verbally or non- or both, without her having to prosaically tell me that she is doing so or leaving it my imagination.

I am enamoured with this one little stroke, not only because it carries something of the language that I functionally understand, but also because I envy it. I envy its usefulness and its utility of written codes; its force and its subtlety... I imagine that I do not understand any Afrikaans, its culture or our culture, and I appreciate it more, for conveying meaning and context that written words alone do not; the written is uplifted to the verbal. Oh, how I envy a whole language (and others) that have this one little stroke that I cannot (says who?) use.

I confess though (why confess? why not recount or just explain?) that at first (the first 3%) I was a) confused and therefore annoyed (another characteristic of South African fiction, and perhaps of our culture(s)) b) reminded of A Story of an African Farm. At the risk of being superficial, I might have kept that book on-hand if it had used diacritics.