Made In Britain

I recently interviewed the English writer Gavin James Bower for Her Royal Majesty, and asked him about his new book, Made in Britain, as well as the study of Claude Cahun he's working on for Zero Books.

An excerpt:

Can you tell me about your affinity for writing in the first person? What does it do for your work that the third person doesn’t?
There’s an obvious immediacy to it that appeals to me, because I want urgency and prejudice and paranoia and alienation to infuse the writing – and the character’s narrative to be taken as is. I don’t feel comfortable writing from the perspective of an omniscient character that’s only partially revealed to the reader, even though there are clear opportunities for landscaping denied, on one level, to a first person narrative. With the latter there’s a vulnerability available, but also the chance to get under the skin of characters – to become them. It’s draining and demanding, but rewarding too. Which is why I write that way.

Read the rest here.

2009/2666

Happy new year!

Apologies for not writing; as you can imagine, it's been a busy holiday season, on top of which I had to travel to San Francisco to give a paper at MLA. That went well, I think– we had about 15 people attend our panel (called French Women Write the Resistance), and given that it was scheduled for 8:30 Monday morning, that seems like quite a turnout to me! I spoke on Claude Cahun, natch.

With the arrival of a new year, it's customary to set resolutions for the year to come.  This year I have only one traditional resolution– to learn to swim properly, rather than flailingly– but I also have a reading list that I intend to stick to, just for the satisfaction and discipline of doing so.  It will be up at Conversational Reading next week. Of course I have my own personal goals for the year, but I would never bore you with those (there is nothing more banal than literary ambition).

Instead I'll tell you this: the French bookshop at Rockefeller Center is closing down, and it's a damn shame. Their rent was raised from $360,000 to an astronomical, unattainable, insane $1,000,000 a year.  They'll put in a Gap or something, and New Yorkers will have to get their French books some other way, by special order, or from Amazon.ca. This is a major loss to New York's intellectual life. No wonder we weren't even close to being named one of the top ten most literate cities in the US.

What did make the list was San Francisco. I write this from the home of a lovely West Coast friend who has generously allowed us to camp out in her Oakland apartment while she is off at a wedding. My friend has impeccable taste in design and books (look at where she works), and we are taking advantage of the rainy weather to stay indoors and enjoy her lovely space. We brought in coffee and breakfast from the cooperatively owned bakery across the street; I've been lingering around the bookshelves and finally admitted to myself that I needed to at least crack open 2666.

Crack it open? Open, it's crack. I'm hooked. I ordered my own copy that should arrive in Paris not long after I do, early next week. Why didn't anyone tell me it was this good?

Ahem.

So San Francisco. Not bad. If absolutely forced to live here (as I may well be, by my Silicon Valley-obsessed companion), I guess I'd be ok with it. I mean, it's not Paris.  But it's got spunk. And books. And people who read books.

[NDLR: It has now come to my attention that the New Yorker's Book Bench blog has elected January 2009 the month to read (and blog about reading) 2666. I knew this was a good time to start!]

around the internet on a tuesday

Cahun eye
 I'll be brief, because I have to catch a plane to New York.

More on Japanese cell phone novels from the New Yorker (a) where do I even start? and b) is my blatant loathing of Japan getting funny yet, or is it just weird?).

Here is an article about a book in which really bad and gross things are done to a priest.

Here is an article about a nun.

And now a very special podcast: An American Bookworm in Paris debuts on KCRW!

I don't know if you've been paying attention, but the publishing industry has been laying people off in massive waves. A huge one happened just yesterday at Macmillan, and Random House is planning a bunch more effective in January.  Bad times, people.  Really bad times.  Please go out and buy a book.  (And maybe make it from Powells.)

Mark Tavani, a senior editor at Random House, traces the crisis back to multimedia corporations buying up smaller houses and imprints in the 90s, and to the changes wrought in reading habits by the Internet. But somehow, he doesn't view what's happening as necessarily a bad thing.

Anyway, maybe we contract. Maybe fewer books get published. Maybe some
publishing folks have to look elsewhere for a paycheck. I don’t say
those things lightly, because I love those books, and I’m one of those
publishing folks, and I have a lot of friends in the industry. But on
the bright side, maybe fewer books will mean better books. Maybe, over
time, books will regain an elite status that I sense they once had.
Maybe, in the end, books won’t qualify precisely as mass entertainment,
but entertainment for a sizable if select audience.

That's one way to look at it.  Here's another: Tina Fey and Sarah Silverman, give back 90%  of your advances right now, and maybe a bunch more people can keep their jobs and some other writers can sell their books.  What do you say?

Meanwhile Forbes has chimed in with their usual idiocy, suggesting that maybe publishers are failing "because they dumb everything down." Yeah, right.  My friend who works for FSG just got laid off because FSG publishes books for dumb people. That makes complete sense.  But Laurence Osbourne does make some good points that counter Tavani's argument regarding the internet: "I don't read the Drudge Report instead of Cormac McCarthy.
Do you?" and concludes:

Of course, there's always the contrary argument. Namely that publishers make their bucks precisely on things like The Da Vinci Code and The Gargoyle and that they support everyone else. We'll leave to one side the sad fact that The Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown didn't come up with a profitable sequel to his first round of execrable twaddle, and we'll ignore The Gargoyle's failure to make anyone rich (and, really, 12th century German nuns? ) It may be true.

Personally,
I don't mind this system as long as I don't have to pretend that just
because something is crap doesn't mean it's crap. But what if the giant
advances, the agent schmoozing and the general hysteria ends up killing
my advances altogether? I will not be so pleased.

 

That there illustration is an object by Claude Cahun which Steven Harris brilliantly reads together with Bataille's L'Histoire d'un oeil (the book with the bad stuff and the priest mentioned above) in Surrealist Art and Thought in the 1930s.

Finished and unfinished

The obscure, mystical Spurious shares these thoughts on works in progress, which were reassuring, in that my own half-essays strewn around my hard drive and my inability to finish them are the source of much self-loathing. Glad to know I'm not alone.

I did manage to produce an essay on Claude Cahun this summer.  It has just run in the fall edition of The Quarterly Conversation.  You can read it here. It goes a little something like this:

In the mid-1980s, when the French poet and writer François Leperlier was
researching a book on Surrealism, he started tracking mentions of an
obscure artist named Claude Cahun on the fringes of the movement. This
Cahun had signed some political tracts in 1932 and 1936 and had
participated in a Surrealist show at the Charles Ratton Gallery and the
International Surrealist Exhibition in London in 1936. No one seemed to
know who he was, and with good reason. At some point in Leperlier’s
research, it emerged that Cahun was a woman—a lesbian writer and
photographer who had produced an impressive amount of work until her
death on the Channel island of Jersey in 1954, a figure whom André
Breton called “one of the most curious spirits of our time.” On the
strength of the photographs Leperlier uncovered, Cahun became an icon
for feminist art historians, and before long she was getting shows of
her own at the Musée d’art Moderne in Paris and the Grey Art Gallery at
NYU. Yet only now, 20 years later, is she beginning to receive the same
recognition as a writer.

(read more)

About that Woodian footnote…

This is what I was talking about.  

I’m in the midst of finishing an essay on Claude Cahun for The Quarterly Conversation, and I just realized I hadn’t yet explained Cahun’s arrest and incarceration during the Second World War.  At an appropriate place in the manuscript, I added this sentence:

“When the Nazis invaded the island in July 1940, the
sisters (for that is how they were known on the island) sprang into
action.”

Then I went and took a look at the abstract I had written for the paper I’m giving at MLA in December, which is all about Cahun’s Resistance activities during the war, just to see how I had succinctly described their wartime experiences there, and I found this sentence: 

“When the Nazis invaded on July 1st, 1940, the ‘sisters’ (for that is how they were known to their island neighbors)
swung into action.”

Sentence #2 was written in January; sentence #1 five minutes ago.
So, James Wood, is this an example of my prose style achieving self-consistency? Are those the best words for this subject? Or am I just a one-trick pony?

On Claude Cahun and “Modernist Remaking” (I)

Let's talk about modernism, shall we?

“Make it new,” Ezra Pound famously enjoined his fellow modernists.

Although this phrase is often taken as an urging to create something new (that is, something which did not previously exist), the inclusion of the pronoun "it" clearly implies the existence of something old that is being made new– this element of "remaking" characterizes much of modernist literature. Pound, Eliot, Yeats, Joyce, Woolf, Lawrence, Barnes and many other modernists delighted in incorporating classical, primitive, medieval, and Renaissance references, among many others, into their work.

Myth is incorporated into the modern novel on a structural level. The meter and language of modern poetry is infused with archaic and exotic languages. Examining these influences has always been an important part of studying modernism, but an analysis of the inherently intertextual energies operating within the heart of this movement-that-is-not-a-movement ought perhaps to take account of this remaking as a theoretical problem.

Cahun1
Claude Cahun (1894-1954) is one artist who answered Pound’s call.  Cahun is a slippery artist to categorize –is she a writer? Photographer? Installationist? Performance artist?—but any familiarity with her work will reveal that this is entirely due to her refusal to allow herself to be placed in any one category.  Her biographer, François Leperlier, characterizes her strategies as "inversion and deviation, reversals and hijackings";  Cahun adopts these in her writing, her photography, her object-making, as well as in her attire and her personal relationships, in order to elude classification in any of these areas. 

Cahun, who lived in Paris from 1922 to 1938 with her partner (and step-sister) Suzanne Malherbe, had a similarly unsettled relationship to the avant-garde groups with whom she was associated, notably the Surrealists, as well as the expatriate circle of lesbians in Paris who gathered around Nathalie Clifford Barney’s salon. 

The different facets of Cahun, public and private, artistic, literary, and personal, conspire to create the portrait of a fully-engaged artist whose work indicates a conception of gender as a construction, an idea which places her way ahead of her time. Cahun’s work anticipates Simone de Beauvoir, Cindy Sherman, and Judith Butler; however, given that Cahun’s work was lost to us after her death and only rediscovered by Leperlier in the late 1980s, and only begun to appear in museum exhibitions in 1992, we cannot claim Cahun as a forebear for these women. She is so ahead of her time and ours that she must be characterized as being at the avant-garde even of the avant-garde. 

Cahun2
Which is fitting, considering Cahun wrote that she wished always to remain “at the prow of myself,” au proue de moi-même. I have argued elsewhere that Cahun exercised an avant-garde du moi: an avant-garde of the self. The self, for Cahun, is inherently multiple and mobile, recreated and reinvented from moment to moment, and gender is a mask which can be put on or taken off according to whim or necessity.  We try to “delineate our roles,” she writes, “according to our changing moods.  It is only after many attempts […] that we can firm up the moulds of our masks” (119).

But it is not her relationship to those writers who came after, but rather, those who came before, that I wish to explore: the intertextual echoes which inform this refusal to let herself be categorized on the basis of her gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or artistic production. Recently, critics have begun to sift through Cahun’s writing for echoes of other writers.  Gayle Zachmann has written on echoes of Mallarmé in Cahun’s work, as well as the impact of the Dreyfus Affair; Lizzie Thynne is currently working on the influence of Wilde on Cahun’s work, which is most explicit in her rewriting of Salomé; Mary Ann Caws reads Cahun within the context of other "eccentric" women artists such as Judith Gautier, Dora Carrington, and Emily Carr.

For our purposes, we will concentrate first on Cahun’s collection of short narratives, Héroïnes, which first appeared in 1925 in the Mercure de France and the Journal littéraire, and then in Aveux non avenus (“Disavaowed Confessions,” 1928), her longest published work, which in spite of its autobiographical nature is unclassifiable as such (the closest genre for it could perhaps be Lynda Barry’s "autobificionalography").  We will examine in particular the influence of Marcel Schwob, Cahun’s uncle, and look twice at Cahun’s response to Ovid and Swinburne in “Sappho l’incomprise” and “Salmacis the Suffragette.” Cahun found in their work the themes and motifs which would allow her to pose questions concerning autobiography and perspective, creation, reproduction, virginity, and gender, stealing form from Schwob and Ovid, and content from all three. We will examine in more depth the way the theme of childhood serves for Cahun as a conduit to the power of the primitive and archaic, and which gave her access to Surrealist ideals and themes.

But all that for another day.

“sous ce masque, un autre masque.

…je n'en finirai pas de soulever tous ces visages."**

That's Claude Cahun for you, in Aveux non avenus (1930). Cahun was the subject of my mémoire de DEA at Paris IV, in which I examined her relationship to the avant-garde, the surrealist movement, her decadent influences, her politics, and her conception of the fluidity and mobility of identity.

I'm thinking a lot of Cahun lately, as I try to devise a dissertation proposal, but even more so this week, as I spent the last two days attending a conference held at my Parisian alma mater, Reid Hall, sponsored by the University of Florida, entitled "Women and the Avant-gardes". The papers were very interesting, and the crowd was nothing if not illustrious, containing at least five of the theorists whose work I drew from extensively for my mémoire– in particular, Rosalind Krauss, Shelley Rice, Laura Mulvey, and the head of the U of F Paris Research Center, Gayle Zachmann. Gayle gave a fascinating paper on the intertextual relationship between Cahun and Mallarmé and I could have picked her brain for hours on the various aspects of Cahun's work that she touched on, particularly Cahun deals with her (problematic) Jewish identity in her work.

But I love this quote of Cahun's, because it's particularly pertinent for artists, writers, scholars, and even bloggers. We lead similar quests– trying to say something, express something, represent something, or just get to the bottom of things– but ultimately we can't get beyond ourselves, we will be forever limited by the scope of our minds. And for those of us engaged in life-writing (bloggers included), it's impossible to get at our "real selves," because they change from moment to moment, as we accrue experiences, with every new thought, with every new person that comes into our lives. I'm constantly aware, in my scholarship, my blogging, and my fiction-writing, that everything I write is just a reflection of my brain, and to a certain extent is a representation of myself as I would like to be perceived. There's no way around that.

Fittingly, tonight we're going to a party for "Karneval," thrown by a friend of mine from Cologne, Germany, and we've been warned that we won't be allowed in the door unless we come disguised– i.e., wearing masks. In my experience, the French are very big on costume parites; in the past few months I've been invited to a party where everyone had to wear flipflops, a fruit party where everyone had to come dressed as a piece of fruit, and another one with a Hawaiian theme. Where I come from, it's only permissable to dress up for a costume party if it's Halloween or you're in a sorority, and in both scenarios it is understood that you must dress as slutty as possible (cf. La Coquette's recent trip back to college). Americans, at least those of my generation it seems, don't like to look foolish, but are alright looking like "pimps and ho's," to cite at least one party from my college years.

Out of sheer embarrassment, I've refrained from attending any of these costume parties here in Paris, but I'm told most everyone who attended complied with the dress requirements… So for tonight, to get my feet wet, I'll be wearing a blue and gold Hermes scarf as a top, with a gold mask in the shape of a rising sun…

** "Under this mask another mask. I will never finish removing all of these faces."