(2014) The Year in Books – Part One

At the start of 2014 I set myself a challenge: I would spend the entire year only reading books written by women. I didn’t do this because I wanted to think of myself as lovely and progressive, but because I wanted to address an imbalance in my reading habits. The fact that I considered a year exclusively reading books by women something of a ‘challenge’ probably shines a light on the nature of that imbalance.

I read quite a lot, but when, at the beginning of the year I went through my list of favourite books I got embarrassed: none of them were written by women. And none of my favourite authors were women. I’ve read a fair number of books by women, sure, and I liked many of them. But the vast majority of what I read, and of what I fell in love with, were written by men.

It wasn’t like I’d been actively avoiding books by women, it’s just that they hardly ever ended up on my reading list. If I’d thought about it a few years ago I might have chalked it up to chance, or how more great writers happened to be men, or some vague, poorly-considered distinction between books by men and books by women. I suppose I would have thought that, in general, books by women are often in some central way about being a woman, whereas books by men are generally more concerned with universal qualities.

Over the years I’ve become more and more aware of the ways subtle, unconsidered biases permeate our society. And as a result I’ve become more and more frustrated with the rationalisations above, because they’re obvious, obvious bullshit, and I’ve heard them so many times before.

Broadly speaking, society teaches us that male is the default, and the male view is the default view. If you took a poll pretty much everyone would disagree with the idea of male as the default, of course. But even though nowadays we don’t consciously believe it, the belief still survives in an unconscious form: in the ways we act, and the way we treat men and women differently, often without realising it. This is as noticeable in art as it is anywhere else.

Think about how often books by women, and popular with women are widely criticised as being amateur or poorly written. Sometimes they are, as is the case with Fifty Shades of Grey, but often it feels like they’re a target because of who they come from, and who they’re for, rather than because of any inherent lack of quality.

Think about how we never stop picking apart women musicians. Taylor Swift is fluffy and her music is awful. Lady GaGa is probably a man. Nicki Minaj is too arrogant. Beyoncé is…well, I’m not sure why so many people are perpetually annoyed about Beyoncé but there always seems to be some new reason.

Think about how few women are in movies for a reason other than to support or to fall in love with the male protagonist (and think about how all this works intersectionally. How black male musicians are often subject to similar constant, overbearing criticism. How few people are colour are even in our movies, let alone filling central roles. etc. etc. etc.)

Think about how often people, especially men, dismiss books like Jane Eyre or Pride and Prejudice as ‘books for women’, but literally never make the same complaint about books written by men. Men write about the world; women write about how women see the world. Jane Eyre and Pride and Prejudice are about something inherently to do with women, but other classics like Crime and Punishment or Jude the Obscure are about universal qualities of ethics and humanity.

Not everyone believes these things, or takes part in these behaviours,of course, but they’re there. Society privileges men as the default, and women are attacked or dismissed in ways men aren’t. This is especially true for visible, successful women, including those in creative fields. She’s arrogant? So are a thousand other male musicians. Her writing style has issues? Have you read Philip K. Dick, H.P. Lovecraft, or any of the other sloppy male writers who nevertheless find a place in the literary pantheon of largely straight white men? Pride and Prejudice is just about women? I suppose Cormac McCarthy isn’t writing about masculinity, but rather universal human nature when he writes five hundred pages about emotionally crippled men scalping Native Americans in the deserts of Mexico?

All this is to say in an excessively roundabout way that among other things, the kind of art that we expose ourselves to, and the way we think about it, is partly a result of the way society has conditioned us to think. When we see the male perspective as the default, we start to forget that it’s a perspective just like any other. Male writers may write about universal aspects of humanity, but they do so through the lens of their thoughts, feelings, and experiences as men (and of a thousand other aspects of their personality and experiences). And women writers do the same, only from a different perspective – one that we privilege less; that we often wrongly see as specific rather than general, ancillary rather than central.

Last year I realised how little I’d chosen to expose myself to works by women, and how often I’d chosen to fall back into comfortable defaults. So I decided to make an effort to get out of this cycle, and expose myself to more women writers.

That’s neither a defence nor an individual condemnation of how awful I am. I’m not writing this article to defend myself, or to atone for my literary sins, and I’m certainly not writing it to show everyone how great I am for reading lots of books by women. I don’t feel proud of spending a year only reading women writers; I feel hugely embarrassed that it was even necessary. And I especially feel embarrassed that I initially worried about whether I’d find enough great books to keep me going throughout the year.

I was wrong, obviously. I mean, god, obviously. Not only did I read countless amazing books by amazing women writers, but I feel it changed my outlook on life in a small but important way. Fiction is about exposing yourself to the experiences and the perspectives of others. It allows you to grow as a person by exposing you to new aspects of life you’ve never seen before. Reading fiction written from only one narrow perspective, especially one so close to your own, is hardly going to help you to grow a great deal.

This year I’ve exposed myself to a wider range of perspectives, and I’ve become a little more open as a result. If you think reading books by women will teach you what it’s like to be a woman then you’re being incredibly naive in a dozen different ways. It isn’t about coming to fully understand and incorporate other points of view. But it can teach you something about perspectives – how many there are, how monolithic they aren’t, and how limited and fallible your own one can be. It made me think about the way we privilege some perspectives over others, and how all writers – regardless of gender, race, sexuality, etc. – write about things that are both wholly universal and incredibly specific.

It’s not much, but it’s a start, at least. If nothing else, I added quite a few entries to my list of favourite books, and I now have a long list of books by women writers that I’m excited to read next year.

[Next time, in Part Two – a few paragraphs on some of my favourite books from last year.]

Posted in Books | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Hide Your Workings: The Interiority of Thomas Cromwell


Wolf_Hall_cover_black

Wolf Hall is the first instalment in Hilary Mantel’s as-yet unfinished trilogy dealing with the rise and fall of Thomas Cromwell in Henry VIII’s court. It takes us through his time as Cardinal Wolsey’s right-hand man, through to his time serving the king himself. Its sequel, Bring Up The Bodies, sees Cromwell rise even further – to the height of his power in the king’s court.

Subjects of vast historical importance swirl around in the background of both books – William Tyndale’s translated Bible circulates throughout Europe; the Anabaptists of Münster take the city and found their New Jerusalem; Henry Tudor breaks away from Rome. But while the novels are concerned with these world-changing events, this is Cromwell’s story – not merely a history lesson on early modern Europe.

And this is very much Cromwell’s story. It’s not the story of Henry VIII, or Katherine of Aragon, or the fall of Anne Boleyn and the rise of the Seymours. It’s the story of Thomas Cromwell. Not just Thomas Cromwell, Secretary to the King, Master of the Rolls, and Vicegerent of the King in Spirituals, but Thomas Cromwell the man.

Wolf Hall begins in Cromwell’s later childhood, and then jumps forward decades to his service under Cardinal Wolsey. But the short time we spent with childhood Cromwell is vital in framing the way we see him throughout the rest of the novels. And his time as Wolsey’s right-hand man – while not as historically important as his service under the king – has a similar impact on the way we see him.

These early sections frame Cromwell as human; as a violently abused child, as a protégé and friend of a great man he deeply admires, and as a husband and father made distant by work, but capable of unsteady displays of affection. And this framing of his character is vital precisely because it contrasts the later parts of the story so significantly.

As he rises in the king’s favour, we see a Cromwell increasingly capable of performing ruthless acts to please the crown and secure his own influence. And without the early sections of Thomas Cromwell the man we’d likely see the later Thomas Cromwell as either a monster, or an automaton devoid of all human feeling.

But when we read through, for instance, his heartless, calculating interrogation of Thomas More it’s framed by what we know of Cromwell the man. The suffering of his childhoood. The day when his wife died of fever, and the days later when his two daughters followed. We remember, following these deaths, moments like this:

“Now he stands in a window embrasure, Liz’s prayer book in hand. His daughter Grace liked to look at it, and today he can feel the imprint of her small fingers under his own.”

Bring-Up-the-Bodies-Hilary-Mantel

These moments of touching, sometimes unbearable humanity stay with us and keep the later Cromwell human. They don’t justify his actions, or absolve his character – they’re not designed to. They’re not about making him a relatable protagonist – by and large he isn’t one, though anyone with an overworked, overtired, overly-distant father will likely see much they recognise. Instead they serve to re-frame everything that happens within the context of one man’s life.

But, perhaps most interestingly, while these instances serve to keep us in mind of Cromwell’s humanity, they don’t serve to give us any real insight into him. His actual thoughts and feelings remain closed off to us for all but the most fleeting of moments. In my mind, the most important line from the entire series so far comes from one of these rare insights into Cromwell’s thoughts, at a less-than pivotal moment towards the end of Wolf Hall:

‘I shall not indulge More, he thinks, or his family, in any illusion that they understand me. How could that be, when my workings are hidden from myself?’

If even Thomas Cromwell can’t see into the mind of Thomas Cromwell what hope do we, the readers, have?  The early sections of Wolf Hall allow us to see the events that formed him, but only rarely do they give us any kind of access to him – to what he thinks and feels. And as the novels progress these few moments of access become rarer and rarer, so that as Cromwell’s convictions and motives are pulled steadily, almost imperceptibly away from us, he too finds his interiority increasingly remote – How can that be, when my workings are hidden from myself?

So we’re left to form our own interpretations of his character, and place our own reasons for his actions: To what extent are his assaults on the Catholic Church in England motivated by belief in the Christian god as described by Tyndale and the reformers, rather than just a desire to redistribute Catholic lands and wealth to benefit his friends, the king, and himself? And later: does any part of him believe that Anne Boleyn is guilty of the crimes he accuses her of? Possibly? Probably not? Even he seems to have conflicting moments on this – and we’re, as always, left to guess.

The lack of insight into Cromwell’s interiority leaves us with no authority on these, and other, matters. So we speculate. And we create our own interpretation of Cromwell, spurred on only by the humanity we saw in his past, and the increasingly rare moments of introspection we’re allowed to witness.

Cromwell remains a fascinating, compelling, unceasingly human character throughout the books, despite the fact that his workings are hidden from us almost the whole way through. And that, even more so than the deft, complex portrayal of courtly affairs in sixteenth century Europe, is the reason Wolf Hall and Bring Up The Bodies are both such capital g Great works of fiction.

Hilary Mantel’s final novel in the trilogy, The Mirror and the Light, is set for publication in 2015. If you know your history better than me you may know where it’s heading. Either way, if you haven’t read the previous two novels in the series I can’t recommend them enough. They’re incredibly dense, and until they dig their claws into you they’re hard work – there are so many characters, and so many of them are called Thomas – but once those claws are in they’re unlikely to come out in a hurry.

Posted in Books | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Paprika (パプリカ)

Paprika - 1Paprika (2006, directed and co-written by Kon Satoshi) is possibly one of the strangest films I’ve ever seen. It’s a fascinating exploration of the nature of dreams (and in a related vein, the nature of film) wrapped up in simple thriller story of world-changing technology and its world-threatening misuse. At first these two sides of the film run parallel but separate, but soon they mix and the entire film is consumed (sometimes quite literally) by the crazed quality of dreams.

The film revolves around a new corporate invention, the ‘DC Mini’ – a device that lets people view, record, and even enter other people’s dreams. This is framed as a revolutionary new tool for use in psychiatry and psychotherapy, and the film’s opening (one of the most startling, delightful openings of any film I’ve seen) sees the titular Paprika using the DC Mini to enter the dreams of detective Konakawa Toshimi to assess his psychological problems.

Paprika - 2What follows is a cold-water plunge into the film’s flawless recreation of dreams. Impossible acts and impossible architecture. Speeches that descend, at first almost imperceptibly, into insane, incoherent diatribes. Shifting forms and morphing faces. Parades of inanimate objects made animate. All that and more. But what defines dreams is so often not just the strangeness, or the impossibility of them, but the fact that this strange, disjointed madness makes so much instinctual sense when while they’re happening.

And it’s here, more so even than in its beautiful portrayal of the impossible, that Paprika really shines. Not only do we experience the mad, impossible architecture of dreams, but we also experience the way dreams feel when we’re inside them. Around the halfway mark its plot descends into absolute madness, and even before then it’s already tearing itself apart. The sudden theft of the DC Mini allows an unknown thief to manipulate the dreams of others. After this it quickly becomes clear that this can even happen while the subject is awake, leading to dream-like delusions, or perhaps something else entirely. From this point on every moment of the film – whether waking or dreaming – becomes entirely malleable, and it’s this that allows Paprika to really capture the feeling of dreaming.

Paprika - 4Countless things in Paprika, up to and including the entirety of the film’s climax, don’t really make sense if you stop and think about them., and in a lesser film, it’d be tempting to call these gaps and impossibilities plot holes, or narrative oversights. But it’s clear that that’s not what’s going on here. Paprika is a film whose narrative is about dreams, sure, but it’s also a film whose structure is about dreams; whose structure is dreamlike. It, as a whole, feels like a dream. It picks you up and carries you along and everything makes sense, or at least seems to.

So, after the film descends into dreamlike madness nothing really makes sense, but everything makes sense. It smash cuts to some impossible sight and we go with it. The characters suddenly exclaim that they have to do something, or find someone, and we think ‘yeah’, even though, if we stop and think, we’ll realise we can’t explain why. Things don’t make sense when you try to rationalise them after the fact, but while they’re happening – while the film is going on – we understand everything on a strange, instinctual level. Oh, of course the dreams collided. Oh, of course she can fly now. Oh, of course going into Shima’s dream and inflating him until he literally bursts will wake him from his coma. Of course.

Paprika - 3

Faces shift their form and torii gates walk. People burst out of the shells of others, like insects emerging from a chrysalid. These things strike you as mad and fascinating and brilliant. But while the individual sights seem strange, every turn and shift and incoherent direction the film goes in makes a kind of sense to the viewer while they’re watching, just as the senseless twists of a dream don’t arouse suspicion until you’ve already woken up. When Paprika finishes you find yourself unable to explain it, and when you try to think it falls just out of reach, but it was there, and you understood it in a way that even now, even minutes after, you don’t fully understand.

There are things that don’t make sense in Paprika not because the writers didn’t think them through well enough, but because the film isn’t interested in making perfect sense. Because dreams don’t make sense, and Paprika is more interested in feeling like a dream than anything else.

Paprika - 6

No other film I know does this; marries the plot of the film with the way it’s constructed to create a film that feels like a dream. Take Inception for example. It’s arguably Paprika’s closest relative in the medium, and Christopher Nolan has stated that Inception was inspired in part by Paprika. Inception captures some of the strangeness and the impossibility of dreams, and its plot revolves around dreams, but only rarely does it feel explicitly dreamlike. It focuses on the architecture of dreams, but not the feeling of dreams. And the strange, impossible twistings of the plot leave us with gaps that feel like plot holes, like oversights, as a result. But Paprika is so immersed in the nature of dreams, the feeling and the qualia of dreams, that its impossibilities and incoherences don’t feel like mistakes. They feel like deliberate and vital decisions that allow the film to feel the way it does.

Crucially, Paprika never feels like it’s just throwing crazy concepts at a wall to see what sticks. It nails down the feeling of dreams not by just being weird and crazy, but by being weird and crazy in exactly the right way. By looking at dreams and capturing, perfectly, the specific mix of feverish, indescribable madness that characterises so many of them. And by capturing the structural madness, rather than just the obvious madness of strange, impossible imagery.

Nor is Paprika an arty film that creates oblique images and references for the sake of some opaque mystery. It’s carries you along as much by being fast, clever, and punchy (with incredible animation, and skilful use of editing) as it does by feeling dreamlike. It’s not just a film of grand ideas and high concepts, it’s a film of slick, masterful execution, from the art design to the animation, the sound, the voice acting, the editing, the screenwriting, the everything. It’s perfect, my god it’s perfect.

Paprika - 5

Posted in Film Blather | Tagged , | Leave a comment