Most writers who matter are monsters. Take Graham Greene. Journey without Maps describes a 1935 journey across Liberia, a place whose interior was shown on the few available maps as largely blank. Greene, whose travel experience has been limited to a few places in Europe and who has never trekked, not only decides to take a walk across the country but to take with him his 23-year old female cousin.

He has only just enough money to pay the bearers and guides, to provision them all and to meet the inevitable bribes. He relies on cashing cheques with missionaries and sweats his labourers. Unlike explorers or missionaries or the traders in Monrovia, Greene has no larger ambition than to sort out his obsessions – which is to say, to advance his writing. For this he drags a score of people through dense forest and swamp, risking disease and death.

If we are to believe his cousin, who survived the journey and wrote a book of her own about it, Journey without Maps is all wrong. But wrong, right, good or bad it worked for Greene. His next book was Brighton Rock.

The general awfulness of good writers was once better understood. Today’s crowd of writers in residence, at festivals and on chat shows could well mislead the unwary into thinking of writers as nice. Philip Larkin, a monster who matters, when asked why he wouldn’t do this stuff, replied “I don’t like going about pretending to be me.”

You are warned. Consort only with the mediocre, and if you must marry a writer, marry a dunce.

 

The Proustian equation is delicately balanced.

That’s the first sentence of Samuel Beckett’s study of Proust, a book I acquired young when Beckett was still alive – I pictured this emaciated man living in a dustbin in Paris – and Proust loomed like some mountain to be tackled only after years on the lower slopes.

In Deirdre Bair’s much-derided life of Beckett there’s a vignette of him lecturing at Trinity: thirty minutes of silent staring out of the window, then one, perhaps two lapidary sentences, then silence unbroken until the bell released the students. Joy. Unless you were there, of course. Perhaps that opening sentence came through the window.

I never did go on with the book, and I’ve lost my copy but the sentence wanders into consciousness now and then like an old friend. I like to think Beckett would approve of this situation.

 

Number 1 son (14) asked offhandedly if I’d mind listing the hundred best novels in order from easiest to hardest.

It brings to mind a 1950s essay on the difficulty of poetry by Randell Jarrell. People ask why this modern stuff is so difficult, says Jarrell. Critics like Eliot have replied that there is no option for a modern poet, the world is excruciatingly complicated nowadays, patati patata. Whereas, says Jarrell, there is nothing new about the situation – good poetry has always been difficult. Jarrell is right, as anyone who has taught poetry to beginners knows. What reader, however experienced, lazes on the beach with Paradise Lost? Cares to be brisk with a Shakespeare sonnet?

Fiction only seems different. I’ve started by dividing the obvious couple of dozen into bands: easy, medium, difficult.

Jane Austen? Within the canonical six, I’d go for:

Easy: Pride and Prejudice | Medium: Emma | Difficult: Mansfield Park, Persuasion

Yet Persuasion was a surprise hit one (distant) year when we set it for first year English . . .
And in any case, by what standard is Pride and Prejudice ‘easy’? It’s more demanding than, for example, Metamorphosis.

 

Unluckily for those of us who write fiction or poetry or plays for a living, the reading public’s demand that every scribbler become a “writer of conscience” has sunk its teeth into our butts. There are few demands for accountants of conscience, or orthopaedic surgeons of conscience. So what is it about novelists and poets that makes us qualified to analyse political trends and influence public opinion?

Linda Grant in Prospect (sub required).

Effrontery?

Theme Tweaker by Unreal