I have, seemingly, developed a filthy habit of starting to read books of which the more conservative members at church would heartily disapprove during the final week of my exams. During the HSC, it was Lolita. For my first set of uni exams, it was The Charioteer.
Mary Renault’s 1953 gay classic would mark a transition in her career, as her final contemporary novel and first to explicitly deal with same-sex attraction. A skim through the introduction seemed to reveal her as my kindred spirit, with our shared concern for the ancient gay (or, as she would say, “queer”).
The Charioteer is set during the Second World War, though thankfully not on the dreary battlefield. Laurie Odell, a recently-injured soldier, convalesces back in England at a veterans’ hospital where he meets and falls in love with Andrew Raynes, a conscientious objector. At the same time, Ralph Lanyon, whom Laurie admired during school, re-enters his life with an underground circle of gay friends. Ultimately, Laurie is forced to choose between the innocent, blooming love between him and Andrew and Ralph’s sexual experience – and settles for the latter. The eponymous charioteer refers to Socrates’ tripartite vision of the soul from Phaedrus: the charioteer (who represents reason) drives a well-mannered white horse (which represents noble sentiments) and an unruly black horse (which represents irrational, base desires), and must exercise control over the two to reach enlightenment.
It’s a thoroughly enjoyable read. The writing is absolutely gorgeous and understated. There is, of course, a wonderful emotional muting which evokes more emotion than more explicitly prosaic descriptions generally do. The plot is also quite eerily similar to Maurice by E.M. Forster – but this is somewhat understandable, since both Renault and Forster were acquianted in similar writing circles.
The most interesting element is the treatment of the love triangle. I am, of course, hardly a fan of love triangles – I’m very much a believer in Soulmates and Destiny (BBC Merlin whomst?). Renault’s treatment of it, however, was painful but necessary – in the way using a pin to remove an ingrown hair might be painful but necessary. Laurie, I would assert, was ultimately more in love with Andrew, and this love was reciprocated in full (cf. that very soft smooch in the kitchens, O My Heart). I was frustrated by his refusal to allow Andrew to make the decision to be with him but later, I was also reconciled with Laurie’s acknowledgement that he would not force Andrew into a difficult position out of that love for him. Ralph, of course, was a bit more complicated. I did not particularly like him – although, granted, this could be very much because of my Soulmates and Destiny bias – but I recognised his importance in allowing Laurie himself to find that there was liberation in being gay.
Either way, it’s a wonderfully-written novel with a lot of complexity bubbling under the surface. It’s certainly well worth a read.
Boy oh boy oh boy. This book. It’s incredible to me that a book that so many of my peers, the book opinions of whom I generally value greatly, find enjoyable could be so painfully bad. I had a bit of a rant on it on Goodreads so I’m just going to copy-paste my review below, but. Wow. What a crappy novel.
What could have been a fascinating exposé on human vanity is undermined by Wilde’s overbearing self-indulgence. I can only imagine that the first draft must have been created by Wilde masturbating over blank sheets of paper, and drawing out each letter with his own semen.
The hypocrisy and self-contradiction of the novel are astounding, especially in relation to the baseless manifesto of its preface. Also striking is the blatant and relentless misogyny, primarily spouted by the insufferable Lord Henry – but Wilde gives us little reason to think women are anything but a one-dimensional hive mind who exist for men with the blandness of his women characters.
The novel is also strangely puritanical in its morality; Dorian’s venture into hedonism is portrayed (tediously, in a whole chapter engorged on pointless purple prose) as a sort of incurable moral fault, when he really just seemed to be enjoying pretty things and having sex with respectable women. It is also much less homoerotic than history seems to remember it, which is possibly a testament of the prudishness of its Victorian audience.
Dorian himself evoked mostly apathy with his unsympathetic stupidity and transmogrification into a bad clone of Lord Henry. Furthermore, the whole Vane affair was shoehorned pointlessly in with a disappointing deus ex machina end, and provided an unconvincing basis for Dorian’s short-lived attempt to repent.
The beginning and the end of the novel are, however, still fairly memorable. The prose had its moments of enjoyable flow. For these reasons I have awarded this book an extra star; otherwise, it remains one of the most irritating and overrated novels I have had the misfortune to read.
Jean-Luc Godard’s 1960 nouvelle vague film, À bout de souffle, seemed to be doing storytelling backwards when it lingered on the insignificant vagaries of la vie quotidienne à Paris – putting us, for a third of the film, with protagonist Michel Poiccard and his American girlfriend Patricia in a dingy hotel room to follow their meandering conversation – and delivered major plot points in brief, confused moments crystallised most finely by the closing scene of Michel’s death, as Patricia delivers a perplexing imitation of Michel’s signature Bogart-esque tic. The Goldfinch by Donna Tartt, published in 2013, seems to follow this upended narrative tradition of glossing over the crucial and poring over the insignificant, albeit with one glaring difference: where À bout de souffle is brilliantly fascinating, thoughtful, and self-aware, The Goldfinch is markedly not.
A more ready comparison to The Goldfinch would be Tartt’s 1993 The Secret History, a thoroughly brilliant novel which serves only to exacerbate the many inadequacies of its successor. In fact, it is difficult to fathom how the sharp mind which crafted The Secret History is the same which hodgepodged The Goldfinch into ink-and-paper existence – I suppose the most applicable explanation for this would come from Hume, who would chastise me for assuming that a common cause would generate the same effect.
The novel is essentially the fictional memoir of Theo Decker, who traces the downward spiral of his life after he is caught in a terrorist bombing in a New York art museum which kills his mother. In the confusion of the aftermath, he somewhat accidentally steals the eponymous painting and comes in possession of an heirloom of a dying furniture dealer. In returning the heirloom to the dealer’s business associate but simultaneously failing to return the painting, Theo sparks a series of events which draw him into a criminal life.
I shall start, as many other critics have, by targeting the novel’s wealth of unnecessary detail. At over 800 pages, the book was begging for a prune like a lavender bush in summer, or anything written by George R.R. Martin. That is not to say that all thick books are full of shit – but the likelihood is much higher, and The Goldfinch certainly was.
Perhaps most irritating was the fixation on intoxication: alcohol, cocaine, marijuana, heroin, and a glittering array of pharmaceuticals permeate the novel in what seems like a conscious attempt by Tartt to seem “edgy” by talking about drugs. Theo’s overdependence on drugs was confusingly irrelevant – he claims that he can control his addiction to prescription drugs by taking them on every other day, dramatically quits almost as soon as he introduces his habit to the reader, then sneaks back into it in his stress. What was the point? His drugged-out reliability is briefly questioned – but then the novel plunges quickly back into action (“action”), and the significance of that is never truly explored.
Associated with the drug ramblings is Theo’s depression and PTSD, which was perfunctorily dragged out to air when it suited the narrative, i.e. when Tartt had to justify Theo’s drug addiction, when Theo rather unconvincingly grieved his mother (going through all the necessary steps of crying at night and not eating), or when Theo rather unconvincingly freaked out over killing a man (obsessively bleaching “blood” from his clothes like a butch, postmodern Lady Macbeth in his Amsterdam hotel room and – you guessed it – imbibing drugs to calm his nerves). That is not to say that it’s wholly incredible that Theo is depressed and has PTSD after the trauma of the bombing, but it’s just so randomly shoehorned into various parts of the novel as some sort of get-out-of-jail-free-card explanation for Theo’s otherwise nonsensical behaviour that it ultimately only serves to promote tedium and a deep desire for an End to the Reader’s Suffering.
There was also just an outstanding amount of (often untranslated) Russian and Dutch, seemingly for no good reason other than to show off a) Tartt’s excellent linguistic research or b) Tartt’s skills as a polyglot. Theo’s Ukranian friend Boris is always speaking Russian and teaches Theo a bit – but what purpose does it serve, really? If it develops Boris’ cosmopolitan character, it certainly does nothing for Theo. The Dutch, on the other hand, just seems to be scenery. And yes, The Secret History was bursting with ancient Greek, but it was thematically relevant there in a way that the Russian and Dutch here seemed like a desperate attempt to recall the depth of that link between language and concept.
I feel that the inconsequential elements of this novel can be blamed largely on Tartt’s attempt to cover an area that was too big. For one, the physical area of the book’s setting was too expansive; although set mainly in New York, there are tangential episodes in Las Vegas and Amsterdam which are given too much word count, since Theo’s subsequent returns to New York render these locations somewhat liminal and insignificant in hindsight. The time frame was also way too long and condensed badly; Tartt seemed unwilling to collapse too many chunks of time (save one 8-year break in the middle of the novel) and filled them instead with deeply uninteresting detail or background explanation. The plot-relevant action only really picks up again, almost reluctantly, in the last hundred or so pages, but by then it’s bewildering and boring and the reader has been already thoroughly worn out by the previous 700 pages of pointless rambling.
In light of this, what were the plot points that Tartt neglected? Perhaps most strikingly, I would say the eponymous painting itself. After all, it does get somewhat forgotten about for approximately eight years in the novel, despite being the reason for its existence. Theo’s fretting thoughts over it are oddly infrequent, as though the painting itself was only put into the novel in a second draft as a deliberate motif to create a sense of narrative continuity. Theo has random spells of musing over how lovely he finds the painting, then returns to babbling on about furniture or drugs.
But? If I must be honest? I can’t really see the appeal of this painting? I mean, sure, it’s lovely, and undeniably ahead of its time; the juxtaposition of the quasi-Impressionistic bird with the realism of its perch, the delicate mystery of its chain. Other than that, I truly feel that I’ve seen much more enrapturing works of art (case in point, Benjamin-Constant’s elusive 1887 Empress Theodora) worth stealing and hoarding and admiring and talking incessantly about – but you know, that’s just me.
Another thing over which Tartt glossed was the heirloom Theo returned, the ring which belonged to Welty (the dying furniture dealer). The ring is the other item in Theo’s possession when he leaves the débris of the Met, and is crucial in connecting Theo with his “found family” and, later, locating him in the same gallery room as The Goldfinch. Other than that, for such a significant artefact with strong motif potential, it’s curiously ignored for most of the novel.
I must touch also on Theo killing the man towards the end of the novel, because – what??? It was so weird and random, like Tartt really felt like she had to show how depraved Theo had become by making him kill a man, but was also unwilling to make him that depraved, so she just made him kill a random baddie. Of course, the fact that only a random baddie dies – in rather speedy and confused scene, no less – makes Theo’s Out Damn Spot! episode afterwards unnecessarily overdramatic. And yes, you may say that I would probably Out Damn Spot! if I killed a random, but in a novelistic context his death is so insignificant it just shouldn’t really matter (also, it’s not as though Tartt doesn’t take artistic liberties elsewhere in the novel).
Moving on now to characterisation, which was disappointingly two-dimensional and clichéd. Theo, the protagonist, completely failed to arouse any sort of empathy. By the end of the novel, I just wanted him to get fucked over (i.e. imprisoned for killing a man, selling fake antiques, and stealing a painting, whatever, just get rid of him), but then he uncannily escaped justice (I could rant more on the awful deus ex machina of how this happened, but I won’t). In many ways, he was more or less an empty vessel filled with pilfered elements of other characters in the novel. Most of those pilfered elements belonged to Boris, his Ukranian friend, a somewhat criminal personality with a fondness for drugs and by far the most developed character. I personally found him supremely annoying (and he was inescapable in the book), and then I found myself frustrated with Tartt’s insistence on both Boris and Theo’s heterosexuality despite the suffocating homoeroticism that suffused their relationship.
At first, I felt like I had a particular bone to pick with Tartt’s awfully flat female characters in The Goldfinch. Pippa is one of the few likeable characters, but her portrayal was obviously a romanticised figment of Theo’s lovesick imagination. Theo’s mum is the saintly Madonna to Xandra’s (his dad’s girlfriend) fake-tanned whore. The matronly Mrs Barbour is lifted straight from some Victorian novel, the perfect entertainer until her fall from grace in the form of her son and husband’s death. Kitsey, Theo’s fiancée, is a superficial rich girly-girl whose hidden depths can only be dredged by the man she cheats on him with.
But then I realised that it wasn’t just the women characters who sucked – everyone sucked. Hobie, another of the few likeable characters, is also a figment of Theo’s imagination in that he encapsulates all of Theo’s ideals of a genial father-figure, in contrast to Theo’s alcoholic dad who neglects him and dies attempting to escape debtors. Lucius Reeve is set up halfway through the novel to be a Big Baddie, but curiously fizzles out towards the end of the novel. There’s a background cascade of random people of colour doing stereotypical things (i.e. gaggles of Asian tourists), and one gay Asian boyfriend of a baddie who cops a degree of racist/homophobic abuse (behind his back, not that that’s any better) from Boris.
But ultimately, the greatest literary sin Tartt committed was in dumbing down. She’s a clever woman, but for some reason, both she and her editor wanted to pander to the Illiterate Masses or something. The unnecessary detail? Probably a glittering distraction from the plot inconsistencies and flat characters. The focus on the painting smacked of the pseudointellectual as if just talking about art – whether or not what you said made any sense or not – automatically made you esoterically intelligent.
Not to mention the painful final 30 pages, in which Tartt more or less tacks on an essay about the novel to the end so it’s Really Obvious For The Plebs What Her Really Clever (read: convoluted and nonsensical) Novel Was About So That They Can See How Clever She Is And Also Pretend That They Understand It When They Talk About The Book With Their Friends. I mean – a well-written novel does not need to justify itself for boring me to death in its final pages. Not only did the essay fail to justify most to all of novel’s events, it was also hugely unoriginal. Art and immortality? The unique ways in which art speaks to us? The Romantics have already pored extensively over these notions with far superior works than The Goldfinch. If this was my thesis for an English essay, I would definitely not be expecting an HD.
Of course, the novel wasn’t wholly awful. It has its moments of beauty in Tartt’s prose, and the furniture restoration sequences are weirdly interesting. Popper (aka Popchik), Theo’s Maltese terrier, is adorable. It is generally enjoyable until the forced elements of plot or swathes of meaningless detail ram their way awkwardly in. But it was, ultimately, a disappointingly dreary read from an author who has already proved herself to be capable of so much more.
Thus spake the tombstone of the legendary King Arthur, according to Sir Thomas Malory’s epic Le Morte d’Arthur. T.H. White, however, is not so interested in the legend in his epic novel/series The Once and Future King, composed during the Second World War. He follows, instead, Arthur the man.
And who is Arthur the man, to White? A tragic figure. Even the blissful childhood of the joyous young Wart is entwined with a sense of great, impending disturbance – Merlyn’s backwards life, references to White’s contemporary horrors, the unsettling episode of the fey queen Morgan. Arthur’s fate is sealed when, newly-crowned and on the cusp of adulthood, he is seduced into an incestuous union with his half-sister Morgause and – as we later discover – attempts to kill the child born from it (Mordred). Yet for this one – though grievous – error, did Arthur’s story deserve to be tragic? He is otherwise virtuous – the willingly oblivious cuckold, unwilling to deny either his wife or best friend; the just conqueror, attempting to unify Gramarye under an ideal of peace; the lawful king, reining in the anarchy of a martial age. Yet he must be undone by Mordred.
Yet for this one – though grievous – error, did Arthur’s story deserve to be tragic? He is otherwise virtuous, almost Augustan – the willingly oblivious cuckold, unwilling to deny either his wife or best friend (unlike Diana, Arthur does not feel that three in a marriage is too crowded); the just conqueror, attempting to unify Gramarye under an ideal of peace; the lawful king, reining in the anarchy of a martial age. Yet he must be undone by Mordred.
Where Malory was charged (in his cameo in the end of the novel) with recording Arthur’s deeds, White concerns himself with psychology. Faithful details and records are unnecessary, nor is historical accuracy. White’s anachronistic style elucidates and alienates the medieval mind, but critiques his own context tenaciously.
In particular, White divulges the mind of Arthur and Lancelot, in this incarnation an ugly, self-flagellating sadist.Where Arthur is ponderous and idealistic, Lancelot’s mind is tortured by religion, ambition, his clandestine love affair with Guenever (in many ways a bizarre love triangle involving Arthur as a non-participating third-party), and obligation to his rapist Elaine.
Guenever, one of the few women in the book, is not the legendary beauty of epic, but blissfully human. She loves and she hates, she hurts and is hurt, she is petty and jealous, she is gracious and forgiving, she ages and hides it badly behind bad makeup. White often generalises her attributes as “typical to women”, but uncommonly takes the stereotype into a realm of human understanding. She is not alienated as White opens her mind for our consideration.
White’s language is characteristically modernist with its unemotional simplicity, but is by no means an unemotional book. It is in fact suffused with emotion, it is an emotionally-taxing read. It brought me to tears countless times. Take this passage:
‘Well, Wart,’ said Merlyn, ‘here we are – or were – again. How nice you look in your crown. I was not allowed to tell you before, or since, but your father was, or will be, King Uther Pendragon, and it was I myself, disguised as a beggar, who first carried you to Sir Ector’s castle, in your golden swaddling bands. I know all about your birth and parentage, and who gave you your real name. I know the sorrows before you, and the joys, and how there will never again be anyone who dares to call you by the friendly name of Wart. In future it will be your glorious doom to take up the burden and to enjoy the nobility of your proper title: so now I shall crave the privilege of being the very first of your subjects to address you wth it – as my dear liege lord, King Arthur.’
‘Will you stay with me for a long time?’ asked the Wart, not understanding much of this.
‘Yes, Wart,’ said Merlyn. ‘Or rather, as I should say (or is it have said?), Yes, King Arthur.’
How does he do it? Merlyn bumbles through tenses. The irrelevant glimmer of detail. The glimpse into the future, and return to the glory of the present. The simple mind of Wart, and Merlyn’s devotion. Somehow, together, they are evocative.
In another passage, White manages to use language alone to gather and thunder an army through a battlefield:
At a military tattoo perhaps, or at some old piece of show-ground pageantry, you may have seen a cavalry charge. If so, you know that ‘seen’ is not the word. It is heard – the thunder, earthshake, drum-fire, of the bright and battering sandals! Yes, and even then it is only a cavalry charge you are thinking of, not a chivalry one. Imagine it now, with the horses twice as heavy as the soft-mouthed hunters of our own midnight pageants, with the men themselves twice heavier on account of arms and shield. Add the cymbal-music of the clashing armour to the jingle of the harness. Turn the uniforms into mirrors, blazing with the sun, the lances into spears of steel. Now the spears dip, and now they are coming. The earth quakes under feet. Behind, among the flying clods, there are hoof-prints stricken in the ground. It is not the men that are to be feared, not their swords nor even their spears, but the hoofs of the horses. It is the impetus of that shattering phalanx of iron – spread across the battlefront, inescapable, pulverising, louder than drums, beating the earth.
Is The Once and Future King a fantasy classic? Perhaps it is fantastic only in its wondrous, liminal setting. Arthur’s tale here is rendered otherwise in a human ugliness and psychological realism that belies White’s perceptive perspective into the human heart in the most classic of foundation stories.
I give my friends lifts home sometimes and they say, as we cruise along night-emptied roads illuminated yolky-yellow by streetlamps, that I’m a bit road ragey. We have a bit of a laugh about it – all in good spirit of course; after all, I can recognise a joke. The joke is that, really, I am not ragey. I am, in fact, quite mild, in a jumpery, professorial way. I lack the emotional range for rage, I’m afraid. If I was a curry, I would be a butter chicken, but even then I am too mild to even be a curry – I’m more like a McVitie’s digestive biscuit, without the chocolate.
But even the most chocolate-less digestive biscuit of people will get irked when driving. Everyone does, it’s inevitable. It’s not that I dislike driving, because I don’t. It’s clichéd, I know, but it really is liberating to be the agent of your own journeys, even if it’s just a run to the Woolies up the road for more milk. Singing along to the radio is also better when no one else is there to judge. It just sucks that I have to share the road with all the miserable incompetents who have slipped under the otherwise panoptic radar of Highway Patrol. Letting out the occasional surprised “fuck!” and the even rarer warning bip bip of the horn as I execute a convoluted series of evasive manoeuvres to avoid people who don’t signal, drive straight, or give me right of way at roundabouts is understandable, really. It hardly makes me one of those hoons Seven News is so fond of decrying.
The worst drivers, of course, are the ones who notice you behind the wheel and start hollering provocations. I can never tell if it’s because I’m a) female, b) Asian, c) a P-plater, or d) all of the above, but it is trying. Driving, really, should be impersonal. It is always irksome to have your existence acknowledged by a stranger, let alone an aggro one behind the wheel. Which brings me to this event, right. It’s quite late at night, and I’m just driving home, minding my own business, and I get to this stretch of road which is surrounded by bush all around. There are streetlamps and I’ve got my own headlamps on, but the eucalypts absorb all of their light into black canopies. I have the window cracked open, just enough to let in the frigid black air and the rustle of bush nightlife. I have a Pixies album plugged into the stereo.
I don’t notice the car in front of me until I’m about seven metres away, and by the time I finish braking, I’m about a metre away. It’s just squatting there, in the middle of the road with its lights off. Displeased, I prepare to reverse and scoot around, but then I can see the dim interior light sputter on through the back window. The driver must have heard me braking. What are you doing? Get out of my way,I honk.
That seems to do it for him. The “him”’ in question is some dishevelled bogan dude with mown hair who’s wearing a white singlet with prints of gang signs or something on the front, spilling out of the passenger door. He has precisely one thong on. I know he’s bogan because I can hear the accent when he starts yelling at me for being a negligent driver for stopping behind him – except in words of one syllable, many of which contain four letters. It is ironic, really, because I am not the one who’s been sitting willy-nilly in the back of their dark car in the middle of a dark road. I check that my doors are locked.
He can’t actually see me at first, because my headlamps are in his eyes. He gets between our cars and leans up the bonnet, squints into the tinted windshield. That’s when he sees me. My face offends him; it sets him off afresh. He yells about bad Asian drivers and his country being overrun with immigrants. He makes inappropriate sexual comments, some violent. He rants about the narcissism of millennials. I don’t have time for this shit.
I am not road ragey. I’m very calm when I do it. I hit the accelerator. I shift the gear to R, then back to D, hit the accelerator again. R, D, accelerate. R, D, accelerate.
I don’t count how many times I did it, but by the end of it he’s slid off the bonnet and is a bit of an unsavoury, pulpy mess across the now-concave boot of his car. The oddly human-sounding screeching which his car’s been emitting trails off after a minute or two. Wave of mutilation, wave of mutilation, Black Francis sings on the stereo. Unfortunately, my mum’s car’s a write-off. I phone NRMA Roadside Assistance.
I was three years old at the time, but I can still remember when I saw the news about 9/11. I was sitting on the living room floor, looking up at our bulky TV showing somewhat incomprehensible images – a plane? two buildings? smoke? fire? Despite my limited understanding of the world, I could still sense the gravity of this event then.
It’s still too early to ascertain what the full implications of Brexit will mean to Western democracy, but for me personally, it will probably be as disruptive as the memory of 9/11. Perhaps you will think of how the British pound collapsed faster than a tower of unsettled Jenga. Perhaps you will think of the irony of feeling upset that David Cameron has resigned. Perhaps you will see the roots of Scottish independence (?). But for me, I will likely remember it as the day my faith in the democratic system – which had, as in every good liberal democracy, been pressed into me since I started school in Australia in 2005 – crumbled. Perhaps a few years down the track I’ll look back to that moment of me and my mum sitting in that tea restaurant in Eastwood after my Philosophy exam, shovelling pork rice into my mouth and feeling only despair as my mum translated the Brexit results off the Hong Kong news that was broadcasting on the TV.
I’m not British; I can’t claim to be the biggest victim of Brexit, and I can’t claim to be an expert on the whole issue. But I know enough to know that it was bad, and thinking about this non-stop for the last ten hours has engendered a lot of interesting questions and anxieties for me.
To begin with: democracy has failed. It has failed us, or we have failed it. (Here, Alice will disagree with me and say that “democracy” as a concept is difficult to define or something. But. You know what I mean. Western democracy, generally.) Democracy operates on majorities, but the majority of people, we need to admit, are just unfit to make decisions about nations because they are just. So. Fucking. Stupid. But democracy lets them have a say, still, because then if we fuck up, then at least it’s our fault and not just the politicians’.
Democracy started the Iraq War. Democracy keeps gun laws in the US. Democracy voted Abbott in. Democracy made Trump. Democracy preferred Clinton over Sanders. Democracy keeps asylum seekers out. Democracy voted in Cameron, twice (which should have been proof that the UK public cannot be trusted with major decisions). And now, democracy has Brexited.
Is there a better regime system? Probably not. Yet, for all my disenchantment, I still believe that democracy had the potential to do better. But the results of this referendum has, if nothing, really hit home the various issues in the Western democratic system which stifled this potential.
Democracy relies on education, but honestly – most people aren’t very educated. Most people in liberal democracies with compulsory schooling resent education. And even with education, there are those who will outright reject the ideas they’re taught. There was a video of a lecture by a professor in EU Law from the University of Liverpool posted onto Facebook, and the professor more or less used his expertise in the field to reject certain “myths” surrounding the Brexit debate and ultimately advocate Remain, a conclusion he reached because of his research. Yet, there were still Leave voters dismissing what he had to say because, apparently, they were better informed about the EU than a man who has a PhD in the field.
So you may say, Jocelin, what’s the point of educating people more if they’re just all idiotic arseholes who are going to ignore people with PhDs?, and in reply, I will assert my continued belief in education to broaden if not all, then at least some minds. And in reply, you may say, Jocelin, not everyone is going to want to do a course in Government studies, and in reply, I’ll say that that’s fair enough, because they shouldn’t need to.
Because they have the media.
The media were meant to be the Fourth Estate of the liberal democracy, the watchdog of politics, the machine that would turn the uneducated masses into informed citizens and voters. But the media have failed us – and in this, I am concerned particularly with news media. All over the world, news media have become disgustingly ineffective. Obsessed with trying to seem “unbiased”, news media have shielded truths from the people with their smokescreen of deflecting words, and have buried their agendas in a cascade of metaphor. Instead of getting into the crux of the issues, instead of giving airtime to detailed political analyses from experts in the field, the news has merely become the soapbox and megaphone of unfiltered political rhetoric. The news has become so obsessed with capturing scandal, it has distorted the truth. What is the point of the media, if not to filter through rhetorical shit for us? If not to raise the real concerns and issues? If not to detain myths with extreme prejudice (like the Australian government has detained asylum seekers on Manus Island)? Without a sensible source of understanding, how can you expect people to do the sensible thing?
One of the most disappointing things about this sordid affair is the comparison of the ages of Remain/Leave voters. The majority of Leave voters were – unsurprisingly – geriatrics, robbing the younger generation of the privileges they took for granted as a part of the EU and deciding on a chaotic future that they would not likely not live long enough to see. Frighteningly, this very sentiment – the feeling that the younger generation had been betrayed, sacrificed to a behemoth, by an unaffected older generation – characterised the mood of WWI and the interwar period. This is, as one article eloquently put it, “the baby boomers’ last fuck you”. In “burning the last bridge” to the EU, the baby boomers robbed the generations below of the opportunity to live and work in 27 other nations, of the economic freedoms of being in the EU, of building up other nations for a collective good. But was it needless burning after all? With a plateful of disintegrating economy served with their tea for breakfast this morning, the scales have fallen from many pairs of reading glasses – voting Leave was the most fucking stupid thing they could have ever done in their lives.
The final insight with which I will leave you is this: the racists won. They have tasted victory, and before long they will be hungry for more. This is probably the most devastating thing for me, as a non-white person; to face the fact that there are still places where the majority of people don’t want me because I am, to them, “foreign”. There is a fucking problem with the world if someone has to make travel plans based on which places “have less racists” because they’re afraid of being persecuted for their otherness. All my life, I’ve felt the tug of the UK in my heart; it is the birthplace of so many of my favourite things. More recently, I had planned to go to Wales for my exchange. And now I probably have to change that because I don’t really want to support a country of which the majority of people essentially voted out of a sense of exclusive nationalism and – essentially – xenophobia. There are communities in the UK right now who will feel this on a more heightened level, feeling even more conspicuous of their otherness and a sense of being unwelcome, of being unsafe.
My English teacher’s words from our study of Henry Reynolds’s Why Weren’t We Told? came back to haunt me: that white people have colonised so much that they live in constant fear of being colonised in turn. Because isn’t it just ironic? Isn’t it just. Britain invaded 90% of the world. I was born in Hong Kong pre-1997 handover. I live in Australia, of which Elizabeth II is still head of state. Maybe, in two years, I’ll go to Ireland instead for exchange, where there is still a chunk that’s under UK sovereignty. Yet 52% of the UK still had the gall to think that they were the ones being invaded, being colonised, being held at the mercy of “immigrants”.
Nigel Farage is partying right now, literally, and it is because this result has pleased him. If something makes Nigel Farage happy, it is objectively evil. This is a fact.
Yet what was the point? The economy’s shot. Two countries in the UK are against it. Generations are divided. The EU’s on even shakier ground than it was before. People are still going to immigrate, if not from the EU then the rest of the world. All those geriatrics who voted Leave depend on immigrants to pay for their aged care and pensions. Well, I suppose, if they all drop dead from a lack of welfare for the elderly, at least that’s kind of poetic justice.
Since finishing Brideshead Revisited in January, I find myself thinking back to it often, just musing on its complexities. I think about Catholicism and Christianity, and how God eventually calls us all to him. I think about the disenchantment of modernity and modernism. I think about the least erotic sex scene in the entire English literary canon. I think about the little shy wine (like a gazelle) and how Sebastian and Charles were definitely in love. I think about how I expected myself to hate the Marchmains, and ended up loving them a lot. I think a lot about the line, “It’s heaven with strawberries.”
In many ways, some aspects of Crazy Rich Asians rathermirror the first half of Brideshead‘s Et in Arcadia Ego. Two individuals meet at a university and come to know each other quite intimately. One is middle class, the other belongs to a much higher social tier. The rich one takes the middle-class one to his palatial family home, where the latter is compelled to interact with the eccentric family members there. Before reading either book, I expected that they would be satirical and found they were not.
BridesheadRevisited was not meant to be satirical, so I adjusted quickly.
Alas, Crazy Rich Asians lacked the grit of insight and beautiful, understated writing which Brideshead offered in lieu of satire. Possibly because it was meant to be satirical.
I probably should have realised that all the effusive praise littered on its back cover and three pages was (in the words of Shrek) compensating for something. Like my fellow classmates in the World Politics tute, Kwan manages to say a lot of stuff (about 400 pages of stuff, in fact) and ultimately mean very little, or nothing. It’s almost a shame, really. His premise is original and genuinely concerning; there is indeed a growing phenomenon of materialistic, amoral, and tastelessly bourgeois wealthy Asians. Yet, for some reason, Kwan refrains from tearing apart these disgusting people in order to pursue his boring little happy ending. Yawn. Yawn.
Emblematic of the dreariness of this novel is the apparent protagonist, Rachel Chu. I say apparent because it’s told in third person omniscient and each chapter switches people, and they’re actually all kind of boring too. But I have a particular bone to pick with Rachel Chu. She (like the other characters, I guess) has no character. We are told a lot about how she’s supposedly so “Americanised” but all I see is just the same-old cookie-cutter second-gen Asian archetype. The fact that she’s into Colin Firth movies is so cringe-worthily typical, like Kwan is not aware that women are actually not homogenous.
Rachel has no emotional depth and is unconvincingly passive about this whole what-the-h*ck-why-is-my-boyfriend-the-richest-person-in-Asia business. As, apparently, an economics professor she is strangely comfortable with the disgustingly flagrant displays of wealth into which she has been suddenly dumped. Why is she not shocked and horrified at these obvious issues of wealth disparity? Why is she not analysing how the selfishness of these people prevents trickle-down economics from being a reality? Why is she not criticising the amorality of the obvious offshore banking and tax evasion these people enjoy? Only in the last 40 pages does she finally grow a spine and sense of logic; in what should probably have been the true end of the novel, she dumps her boyfriend Nick with an uncharacteristically insightful speech about the depravity of his family. Of course, all this belated character development is ultimately bulldozed over when they get back together without sorting out these issues she raised earlier.
And indeed, the wealth is disgusting. But possibly even more disgusting was Kwan’s portrayal of it. After a while, it got a bit difficult to tell whether Kwan was trying to make fun of them or really just wanted to be them, deep down. Every three paragraphs – quite literally – Kwan would chronicle someone’s outfit or some rich person’s house with the painstaking dedication of a fourteen-year-old snipping sullen-eyed models out of their mum’s copy of Vogue to glue-stick into their diary. It was like he was doing product placements. I felt a bit ill.
Moreover, there was a confusing scene in which Nick says, “I remember there was one [traditional Malay village] nearby which we would sneak into to steal baby chickens.” Already, my brain’s alarm bells are screaming, YOU’RE WEALTHY AS FUCK, WHY ARE YOU STEALING INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S PROPERTY? (It’s also screaming about the preposition placement, but we can ignore that for now.) Rachel, soulless plank that she is, says fondly, “Little rascals!” And they have a bit of a laugh, as my incensed mind shrieks, FOR FUCK’S SAKE WHY IS STEALING FROM THE POOR BEING CONDONED?
Another morally confusing scene is the final chapter featuring Astrid, Nick’s “It Girl” cousin, who has just been dumped by her husband because of her overbearing family and her laissez-faire attitude to spending money. Astrid’s story arc had a lot of potential, and I was looking forward to her perfectly-coiffed head getting pulled out from its ostrich-grave of materialism and exposed to some real hardship. But after all the dumping and upset, she finds herself in the arms of her former boyfriend who…basically kind of demonises her husband for not being OK with her lavish lifestyle? So ultimately, she’s not compelled to learn about how there’s more to life than fancy dresses. Hugely disappointing.
Actually, all of the characters are irritatingly one-dimensional, little more than walking clothes racks. There are, for one, way too many to be fleshed out properly, like one of those Marvel superhero mashup movies. They are also predictable; most of the women characters are essentially a homogenous mass of natural beauty, designer clothes, and shallowness. Furthermore, the focus on the character of Eddie was bizarrely unnecessary; he added ultimately nothing to the plot other than being a bit of a shit, and petered out mysteriously halfway through the last part.
Overall, the writing in and of itself was pretty bad. Kwan is exceptional in that he may be the only person on this planet to not have had the Holy Mantra of Creative Writing, show don’t tell, drilled into his brain from birth (or at least Year 2). The novel is a lesson in Writing for Simpletons. There are some wonderfully tautological lines such as, “…he screamed, feeling the pressure building in his head,” and “…was having a heated conversation with her daughter…she fumed”. There’s evidence of Poor Research, as evident with his claim that the British accent was common in Hong Kong – undeniably the words of a man who has never been to Hong Kong, or has no idea what a British accent sounds like. There are lines which are so bad it’s hard to tell whether or not they’re meant to be satirical, such as this exemplar: Rachel looks at a Venus of Milo replica and literally thinks that “maybe someone should chop off her arms too. Maybe she would feel better” – honestly, what the fuck does that mean? Not to mention this gem: “Dongguan Prison. Even the name sounded ominous” – oh I don’t know, maybe because its name literally has the word “prison” in it??????
Unfortunately for us, not only has Kwan not had show don’t tell drilled into his brain, the people who “educated” him clearly replaced that mantra with said is dead. So we are graced with a smorgasbord of speech tags: “ventured”, “added”, “seethed”, “countered”, “mused”, “chided”, “boasted”, “reported”, “declared”, “complained”…and when a “said” was truly necessary, he just had to spice it up a bit. “Said saucily.”
Not only does his expression leave much to be desired, I also found spelling and grammatical errors. For example, when describing the sound of a gong, he writes, “A melodious peel [sic] rang through the room.” I saw mandarin peels flying across the hallway in my mind’s eye. He (and his editor) are also obviously unaware of the difference between “disinterested” and “uninterested”, as it seemed not to rake on their grammatical conscience that he had used the former when he meant the latter.
That’s not to say that everything in the book was total shite. I did quite enjoy the snippets of Cantonese, the homage to the culture of the Asian matriarch (replete with Thatcher-style perm), and the accurate description about the predictability of second-gen Asian boys. But let’s be real, that’s really not quite enough to convince me to like this book after the grief it gave me in all those areas above – and all the other horrid bits I couldn’t fit in here. It lacked complexity. It lacked coherence. It lacked closure. It lacked commentary.
It lacked enjoyment, really.
TL;DR – if you want a quality book on rich people, read Brideshead Revisited and recycle Crazy Rich Asians.