Counterbalance

Formative Reads

I've had the same conversation several times over the past few weeks at various bookish events. It never starts the same way, but it invariably gets to the same spot: a few novelists I discovered in college and in the years just after that I find myself wanting to revisit.

I believe it began with Muriel Spark which led to Jeanette Winterson which somehow led to Graham Swift. Julian Barnes was required reading for my french film studies (the film: Madame Bovary, the required book: Flaubert's Parrot) and Barnes somehow led me to Banville.

I'm strangely possessive of these writers because they gave me so much to think about and seemed to "get" me and the kinds of things I'd hoped to write at the precise time in my life when I needed to be gotten, so confused was I about my own talents and aspirations and dreams in the literary scene. (Working for a not-so-lovely lit agent did not help matters, but I digress.)

I've never re-read their work because I've somehow relegated their novels and essays to that time in my life, that period of grasping onto ideas and devouring them whole, keeping whatever literary nutrients I could to propel me forward. There was also, of course, my near total obsession with Vintage International books at that time. It didn't hurt that many of these books were issued by Vintage with their delectable and infinitely collectible color-coded spines. (Another digression, worthy of many posts.)

It may be that I'm nostalgic for all that grasping and hoping. Or perhaps I'm just tired of the new new new novel that has become de riguer reading in many literary parts. These writers and the works I read back then are calling to me in a way I can't ignore. Just thinking of Swift's Waterland brightens me up. Spark's Loitering With Intent is a classic I'd like to be steeped in again. Winterson's Art & Lies is begging to be rediscovered. A re-read of Banville's Book of Evidence sounds like home.

Banville Benevolence

If I'm to have any hope of providing proper coverage of the Kiran Desai reading (which is looking to be at least a three-part posting extravaganza, SO unexpected as I only attended the event in a moment of...ennui), I must - simply must - get the other readings out of my head, off my proverbial plate and out into the world.  What does this mean for you, dear readers? It means Banville notes, hastily wrapped up and an even shorter Jane Smiley post shortly thereafter. The good news with Smiley is that there wasn't ever going to be a long post, so there's no need to feel that my laziness and inability to properly plan ahead will result in you missing gem-like nuances from the reading.

Banville on the other hand...well...we'll see.  I had never intended to do a fully detailed post on this (of the DFW four-parter magnitude) because the event didn't lend itself to such observation, such laborious detail. So, without further ado, I bring you a bulleted list of all the things I captured that have not been reported here, or at Mark's, or Book Fox.

• There were MANY Brooke Astor-esque types running about.  White-haired sophisticates dressed for the opera dashing too and fro, attending the super secret cocktail party held before the reading. (Why? Why wasn't I invited? I had wondered when I first arrived. Yet when I saw that I would clearly have been so out of place, I was relieved. Thank goodness, I wasn't invited!)
• I'm guessing these Astor types were to do with the library. On the board or the council or some other very important high society type thing.  Fine. I can deal with that.
• What I can't deal with is that they were so wrapped up in their own importance that they weren't properly reverential to Banville - whose very presence was no doubt made possible by their busy fund raising, donating, library-chairing endeavors.  A bizarre thing to witness: their work made his appearance possible, yet they took little notice of the wonder they'd achieved.  I spent much of the pre-discussion, pre-reading time wondering if these people had even read his books. Surely they had...but it irked me nonetheless. It is highly likely that I'm totally off base here, but there is a little nugget, deep down, that tells me I'm not.
• Proof of such silliness: The repeated botching of his name. Twice. (I know, I've mentioned this before but I need to provide proof of my claims or Ed will have my head.) If you know of his work, if you respect the man at all, how could you possibly get that wrong? Twice? Not acceptable. An affront on all accounts.
• Further proof of such silliness: At the very end of the reading & discussion and just before she botched Banville's name again, the announcer jumped onto the stage (as Banville was still speaking) and said "I'm so sorry but I forgot to mention my husband earlier and thank him." !?!?#?!?%$?%  How, I ask you, HOW, did that seem like an okay thing to say? That is not how you behave in front of Banville! Ugh. He must have thought we were a bunch of louts. It blew my mind.  Banville took it in stride, smiled, carried on. I'm sure he's experienced worse. But how much worse? Truly awful.
• Tara Ison had done research and repeated back to him a few things he'd said in past interviews. I didn't capture those, of course, but after one of her past-quotes, she asked him what he thought now, if his views had changed since he'd said whatever she quoted. His answer: "Look, when you do those interviews, you know you're speaking rubbish."  Isn't he the best?
• Banville spoke of still feeling a fraud after all these years of writing, after all these books. He spoke of the discrepancy between the worker and the work that is produced. He spoke of himself writing in a "grubby room, with my grubby coffee" - and how surprising and delightful it is when these grubby musings come to be seen as works of art.
• He said that The Sea was not something he thought would go very far -- was afraid it was just the musings of an old man. Too emotional.
• He said beginning a new book is like creating an alien with claws in your throat.
• He said that his Banville books are about "what it means to be in the world" and that his BB books are about "what it means to act in the world."
• He said we are "born alone, we live alone, we die alone."
• He thought it was marvelous fun that his Christine Falls characters are making it into a second and a third book -- that he's never experienced the continuation of characters that grow, change, become other than how he first conceived them.  You could see the twinkle in his eye as he said this - and I got the clear impression that he is simply tickled pink to have found something so wholly different from what he had done before. So different, and yet so important for both sides of the work, the Banville side & the BB side.
• He said Richard Ford's Lay of the Land was a "masterpiece."  That Roth & Bellow are divine.
• And finally: When asked about any new fiction/contemporary writers he reads, he remarked that he didn't find new fiction that interesting. He spoke of a book (but didn't specify which) that he was recently asked to review. He read the book and realized that it would have to be a very long review for it to even be worth his time. The publication didn't want a long review so he didn't review it. He ended this bit by saying he finds that a lot of the newer fiction "doesn't have enough meat for me."  This is the sentence heard 'round my world. A charge meant to jolt just me. Instantly, as soon as the words were uttered, I felt a shock. A perceptible change in my make-up. A challenge. In that moment, sitting with my leaky green pen in a sea of green thick-pile carpeting, way back in the last row, I made a decision: I must write as if Banville will be reviewing my work. I must write in such a way that there is enough "meat" for such a man. That it would be deemed worthy of his time. A tall task, but one I think any writer would be wise to take up. I am certain it will raise the level of my game.

That is what you can get out of a good reading.  Worth it, don't you think?

Banville Bits & Blunders

Surely you know that I couldn't possibly have my lengthy, multi-part, rambling rendering of the Banville reading up and ready to go first thing this morning. Right? (Right?)  Yet, this time I must compete with Sarvas who has video and who actually asked a question and whose previous interview with Banville was cited by Tara Ison during her interview with Banville.  So. You know, I'll be the fill-in. The comedic relief. The mise en scène. But to give you just a taste of the evening that was...I offer a few paltry asides before the Sarvas event takes place. I'll then drum up my musings later this week and early next.  (I've still got Jane Smiley to do and she is, as I've said, LONG in all sorts of ways.)

• The announcer (a Brooke Astor-esque woman in her Chanel suit and flowing scarf and diamond earrings) introduced him as John Banfield. Twice. (How one could possibly deign to screw that up, I really don't know. I still haven't recovered.)
• My green note-taking pen leaked all over me and the carpet at the Mark Taper Forum. Good thing the carpet at the Mark Taper Forum is also green.
• While getting greedy in the "popular library", I found I'd checked out far too many books and had to make a quick trip back to the car to drop them off before I attended the reading (more on these later).  Who pulled up in a silver Mercedes SUV right in front of the elevator?  None other than the man himself. And here's the thing...he wasn't the passenger. He was driving!
• He's delightfully funny. Really. After being introduced by Brooke Astor and Tara Ison, he said he felt like Krusty the Clown coming on stage after two such gracious introductions. Which was generous, because I found both intros to be snoozy. But that's just me.
• He is nothing else if not truly Irish: he mentioned sins and guilt over a dozen times - even referring to his past books as his past sins. Satirically yes, but with a tad of serious.
• Banville Gem #1: "Even at its darkest, life is hideously funny."
• Banville Gem #2: "We have to be wary of prizes (book or any other) as a measure of our work. The only judgment is the judgment of time."
• Tara Ison was very jumpy and quite nervous. It seemed. I could be wrong. But wouldn't you be?
• Banville Gem #3: "If you write honestly, you will not be sentimental."
• Banville Gem #4: "Of course all the characters are me, I'm the only material I have. You're the only material you have."
• The audience questions, for the most part, were at least not embarrassing or painful. But they could have been far more insightful. John Banville - astonishing writer - and you want to ask him dull questions? Ugh. Sarvas asked the only proper question of the evening. I'll leave it to him to share that first. I'll do the fill-in later.
• It is always fun, at these higher profile readings, to try and figure out who Sarvas is. I've never known. We've never met. At all author events, I try very hard to be invisible. To document what takes place, but not insert myself into the unfolding.  So I always leave wondering...was he here? Last night, Tara Ison made mention of him, then said his name when he was given the microphone to ask his questions. So, alas,the secret is out. I've now laid eyes on him.  At least I think it was him.  The dead giveaway, though, was the stalkeresque man who was gravely enamored with Mark.  As I passed by, I overheard "Congratulations on the marriage. Congratulations on your book..."  Who else could it possibly be but Mark?
• And so, now, over to Mark until I get my act together tomorrow or the next day or the next...

But I will say this - it was such a delight to see an author I've admired for years read his work and then discuss it. It was akin to what seeing The Clash would have been like for me when I was younger. Or even now.  While so many parts of it could have been better -- none of it mattered.  All the irritants fell away as soon as he appeared on stage and did his thing. Better still: I'm inspired to write at the highest level possible...even if it turns out not to be possible for me.  That is powerful stuff.

Update: Sarvas has his take up now.