More on Joseph Roth
Posted: February 17, 2012 Filed under: Articles | Tags: Joseph Roth, Michael Hofmann, Stefany Anne Goldberg Leave a comment »Yeah, I’m slightly obsessed, but it’s nice to see one of my favourite writers getting a bit of attention.
Michael Hofmann writes in the Guardian about his first encounter with Roth’s work:
Roth somehow resists the tendency of literature to update, to promote, to miscegenate: that conversation between the centuries envisaged by Kundera in Life Is Elsewhere, or by Jan Kott in Shakespeare, Our Contemporary, and so forth. Roth is just so resolutely and specifically gone. He reached into our modern world of newspapers, telephones, cars, advertising – and of Amazon and Franz Ferdinand, ultimately – but disdained it, fled it, went backwards. (Nitroglycerine, was his comment on it.) It would be like meeting someone in sepia, a daguerreotype.
There is not, as far as I know, any film footage of him, or any sound recordings – even though he lived until 1939. I don’t really know, and can’t quite imagine what he looked like, or sounded like (his accent?), or behaved like. The photographs are averted, or they are masks. An eager brylcreemed sylph of a boy-journalist, later seedy with avoirdupois and Sitzfleisch. Courtly; ugly; natty; short. Attractive to women. First, poor beautiful schizophrenic Friedl, then Andrea Manga Bell, a Haitian princess from Hamburg, then the very good 30s German writer, Irmgard Keun. His hair blond-ish, supposedly, then a dark smear of wax trained across the wide, wide forehead; a cavalry moustache – bristly, or soft? – later; bulbous eyes, said to have been blue, then alcoholically watery and of a bottomless sadness.
I wonder how much older he would have seemed than he was – he who claimed to have started drinking before his 10th birthday; whose experiences in the first world war – whatever they were – constituted his first taste of travel abroad; who came back in 1919 to a truncated fatherland; whose wife went mad; whose friends killed themselves or died early; who in just two decades wrote thousands of pages of fiction and thousands more of journalism. I can’t read a line of his small script, not even his signature, and have never directly seen anything that was his. “Even parrots outlive us,” he wrote once – in his case, comfortably: he died at 44. A further source of guilt for me is that I am older than he ever got to be.
Stefany Anne Goldberg at the Smart Set on Roth’s historical position, poised between the end of the Habsburg Empire and the modern world:
The tightrope Roth balanced between formality and informality was also a delicate balancing of past and present. Born in 1894 in the Galicia of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Roth was witness to the collapse of an entire world, the world of European empire that gave way to the world of modern European nation states. He was a monarchist who couldn’t believe in the promises of nationalism; a Jew in an anti-Semitic society (who later considered himself a Catholic); an Austrian whose post-war home was in Germany, a country he lived in only periodically; a German writer who worshipped France, whose city of birth turned Polish and then Ukrainian, who had no father, whose wife was insane, who lived out of three suitcases, who didn’t even own a copy of any of his books; a man of the East and the West, the past and present, but never the future. “I am never at home,” he wrote in 1933 to Félix Bertaux, “just wander around randomly, I can’t stand to be in a room.”
Michael Hofmann again at the Millions, listing all the mentions of Roth’s masterpiece Radetzkymarsch in Roth’s letters:
JR to Stefan Zweig:
“If I am to finish the novel this year, then I can’t go to Vienna. It would set me back weeks. I’ve been stuck of late anyway. Maybe it will flower again next week.”
JR to Blanche Gidon (French translator):
“I have always been grateful to you for going to such trouble over my book. I never doubted that you took on the translation for no selfish motive. However, I cannot avoid saying to you that your translation is a bad translation, and — in spite of my debt to you for going to so much trouble over the book, and in spite of the friendship I feel for you — it remains a bad translation. Do you want me to tell you it is good, against my own convictions, when I am convinced of the opposite? — Maybe I am a boche. But, be it out of politeness or friendship or anything else, you can’t expect me to say something that doesn’t accord with my convictions.”
JR to Carl Seelig:
“My book, which I finished in Rapperswil, I no longer have any feeling for. I am writing a new one.”
Imre Kertész speaks to Le Monde
Posted: February 16, 2012 Filed under: Interview, Politics | Tags: Imre Kertész Leave a comment »I thought this interview with Le Monde, (via the Bookslut blog) in which Kertész speaks about the current political situation in Hungary, was tremendously interesting, so I thought I’d translate it into English (it’s quite a rough and ready translation). Pdf here.
I don’t agree with his ideas about the polarity between the East and West, tribal and Christian cultures in Hungary, but what I think is especially interesting is what he says about Hungary’s history:
The question I ask myself is: why has Hungary always taken the wrong path? Remember. When revolution was roaring through Europe, Hungary supported Marie-Thérèse! From the 16th century onwards, the country was first part of the Ottoman empire, then the Habsburg, then the Soviet bloc. Every time, it tried to play the game of the country which had absorbed it. That appeared to work quite well. But only in appearance. Under Kadar the country seemed like the most enthusiastic part of the Soviet camp, but that was at the price of the suppression of the 1956 revolution and a political indebtedness which cost them dearly. The current situation is just another example of this tendency to take the wrong path. The Hungarian state chooses today to be in opposition to Europe in the name of the defence of its national interest, which gives the impression of a return to sovereignty. But once more it’s in error. Nothing new, no problem, and therefore no solution because there is no problem.
…
Can we see a parallel with the 1930s?
In Hungary, yes. There are pages on that in my Diaries. Images. The walls of the metro escalators in Budapest covered in posters in the same green that the Arrow Cross Party used (Hungarian fascists of the 1930s): “Neither left nor right, Christian and Hungarian” and underneath, the sign of the far-right party. These visions remind me of my childhood. In 1938 we collected the electoral flyers of the Arrow Cross Party: Jews in top hat and tails, bouncing like fleas in the passage of a steamroller…
…
How do you see the future?
Some days, I tell myself that secretly the Hungarians know that we’re going in the wrong direction. And that Orban will fail–after all, in the 1940s, the situation in Southern Tyrol seemed equally intractable. And that was resolved. But I don’t think we can rule out any hypothesis. It’s also possible that Hungary will descend into utter chaos. That would be a tragedy, but when the people are alienated from politics and the economy is in an impasse, the danger is serious. The question of the gypsies is as important as that of the Jews. If the systematic persecution of the gypsies continues, they will eventually lose patience. They will be driven to violence.
Harold Arlen: The man who got away
Posted: February 15, 2012 Filed under: Birthdays | Tags: Harold Arlen Leave a comment »I love this song, and this particular video is lovely for the faces he makes when he sings (it’s NOT Somewhere over the rainbow, by the way). Harold Arlen, 15th February 1905-23rd February 1986.
Modern declaration
Posted: February 14, 2012 Filed under: Poetry | Tags: Edna St Vincent Millay Leave a comment »I, having loved ever since I was a child a few things, never having wavered
In these affections; never through shyness in the houses of the rich or in the presence of clergymen having denied these loves;
Never when worked upon by cynics like chiropractors having grunted or clicked a vertebra to the discredit of those loves;
Never when anxious to land a job having diminished them by a conniving smile; or when befuddled by drink
Jeered at them through heartache or lazily fondled the fingers of their alert enemies; declare
That I shall love you always.
No matter what party is in power;
No matter what temporarily expedient combination of allied interests wins the war;
Shall love you always.
–Edna St Vincent Millay
And for more love poems for Valentine’s day, see here and here.
Philip Hensher on Joseph Roth
Posted: February 13, 2012 Filed under: Articles | Tags: Joseph Roth, Michael Hofmann, Stefan Zweig Leave a comment »There’s a lovely review of Joseph Roth’s Letters (recently published in English and translated by the brilliant Michael Hofmann) at the Spectator:
It is sometimes difficult, enjoying the sophisticated, detached gaze of the best of the novels, to remember the extraordinarily difficult circumstances in which most of them were written. Roth saw immediately the threat of Hitler — he is mentioned by name in his very first novel, The Spider’s Web in 1923, before the Beer Hall putsch took place. Roth, as a Jew and a congenitally critical spirit, would always have a career of awkwardness and dissent. In the years of his active writing, 1923 to his death in 1939, his life was wrecked by the lack of support from newspapers, principally the Frankfurter Zeitung, political oppression —The Radetzky March was finished, as Michael Hofmann observes, just in time to be burnt in the Bebelplatz — and personal difficulties.
And on Stefan Zweig:
The relationship with Zweig is summed up by a brutal anecdote that Hofmann brings to our attention. Zweig ordered a pair of trousers for Roth, since he only had one pair, unfit for the sort of restaurants Zweig liked. Roth insisted that they be cut in an Austrian cavalry style, making them immensely expensive. The next day, Roth, sitting in a bar in Ostend with his cronies, ordered a vividly coloured liqueur, which he proceeded to pour all over his jacket. He was ‘punishing Stefan Zweig’, he explained, and he was going to embarrass him by turning up for dinner in a stained and stinking jacket: ‘Millionaires are like that! They take us to the tailor and buy us a new pair of trousers, but they forget to buy us a jacket to go with them.’
(Incidentally if you haven’t read Michael Hofmann’s somewhat robust views on Zweig in the LRB you really should.)
Roth’s letters are the first book for ages I’m actually going to buy new and in hardback.
Christa Wolf
Posted: February 7, 2012 Filed under: Deaths | Tags: Christa Wolf, Günter Grass Leave a comment »Another death I mean to write about: that of Christa Wolf, the German novelist who died last December aged 82 (Guardian obituary; Spiegel obituary). Born in 1929, Wolf grew up under the Nazis; the town she grew up in was then called Landsberg an der Warthe and was in Brandenburg in Germany; after the German-Polish border was moved westward after the Second World War to the Oder-Neiße line, it became Gorzów Wielkopolski in Poland. As an adult she became East Germany’s most famous writer.
My favourite book of Wolf’s–and one of the great European novels on the Second World War and its aftermath–is Kindheitsmuster (A model childhood--although it also seems to be translated as Patterns of childhood), written in 1976, which examines the way that the Germans remembered and dealt with their Nazi history. Divided between Nelly Jordan’s childhood and adolescence in and East Prussian town during the Nazi period, and the adult Nelly’s visit to the town–now in Poland–with her brother and daughter, the novel plays with the dislocations of time and space which Wolf herself experienced: their hometown is now a foreign country; the places of their childhood have been almost completely obliterated by war; even the language spoken is no longer the same.
“What is past is not dead; it is not even past. We cut ourselves from it; we pretend to be strangers.” Kindheitsmuster starts with an echo of William Faulkner; it continues, unsettlingly, in the second person: the narrator writes about ‘your brother’ when she means ‘my brother’, says ‘you do this’ when she means ‘I do this’. Wolf is universalising, addressing every German, forcing them all to confront their shared past–a past which was often, in the GDR, officially described as something which had been inflicted on the East Germans and not something they were complicit in. While the Communist leadership of the DDR did suffer terribly under the Nazis–Walter Ulbricht was exiled to Moscow, Erich Honecker spent eight years in a concentration camp–and the close relationship between the GDR and the USSR meant that the Red Army were usually described as liberators rather than conquerors of East Germany, the culpability of individuals within the GDR was more problematic than this might suggest.
Christa Wolf is constantly worrying around the impossiblity of making a fresh start, of being able to distance oneself from the horrors of the past. Kindheitsmuster speaks to the reader in the second person, but the narrator describes herself as a child in the third person, not as ‘I’ but as ‘she’ or ‘Nelly’. The adult Nelly is revisiting her childhood, partly literally, in visiting the town of her birth, but partly also in long discussions of the nature and meaning of memory. She recalls the innocence of the child Nelly, but also the myriad ways in which as a child she learned to ignore the realities of life under fascism–persecution of the Jews, Ukrainian slave labourers in the fields–until it’s clear that the idea of the innocence of the child is so flawed as to be non-existent. To function, fascism must make everyone complicit: there comes a point at which everyone chooses not to ask awkward questions or to look too closely at the fate of their Jewish neighbours.
Postscript: When Stasi files were opened after German reunification it was discovered that Christa Wolf had, for a short time, been a Stasi informant. Following an outcry from the newspapers and other writers, Wolf made public her Stasi file, which showed that she hadn’t supplied any information that could be used to hurt any of her friends and acquaintances. She was, in fact, under surveillance by the Stasi for over 30 years herself. The outrage, however, overwhelmed rational asessment of her writing for many. After her death, her friend Günter Grass spoke about the controversy in his eulogy for her:
What had caused so much malicious will to destroy? A text written in the summer of 1979 whose themes were doubt, self-doubt, and the eavesdropping and overt surveillance of Christa Wolf and her husband by the State Security Service of theGDR. From the security of their own desks and intoxicated by the sort of gratuitous courage that seems to flourish in editorial offices like a potted plant, these critics accused her of having been too cowardly to publish her story as soon as she had written it. To do so, claimed Ulrich Greiner, “would surely have been the end of Christa Wolf as a state poet and probably have resulted in exile.” From his safe corner he asserted magnanimously that “she could easily have found shelter in the West.” And Frank Schirrmacher went so far as to accuse her in the plural: “Everyone recognizes that these are sentences from 1989, not 1979.” Neither acknowledged that it also took a decade for Sommerstück (“Summer Piece”), the novel she wrote after “What Remains,” to be published in the GDR.
What a prodigious amount of hypocritical outrage from the pens of journalists who had never been subject to state censorship, but who officiously and opportunistically served the zeitgeist.
Led by powerful and influential newspapers, the press campaign of 1990 continued on, again and again springing back to life. Echoes of it can even be heard in some of her obituaries. It was especially the term Gesinnungsästhetik [an aesthetics based on policial convictions], coined to describe the work of Wolf and many other post-war German authors, that to this day inspires the petty minds that want to lock up literature and its creators in a piece of real estate known as the Ivory Tower. Hard on its heels, the personalized neologism Gutmensch [do-gooder, politically correct person], an expression of the prevailing cheap cynicism, came into circulation and was posthumously applied to Heinrich Böll. At this late date, after Christa Wolf’s death, we should probably not expect that the spokesmen of that bygone campaign might apologize in print, if only to acknowledge the pain their odious behavior caused. They obviously lack the self-doubt that Christa Wolf evinced all her life—in excess, in my opinion.
Monologue for Cassandra
Posted: February 5, 2012 Filed under: Poetry | Tags: Wislawa Szymborska Leave a comment »It’s me, Cassandra.
And this is my city covered with ashes.
And this is my rod, and the ribbons of a prophet.
And this is my head full of doubts.
It’s true, I won.
What I said would happen
hit the sky with a fiery glow.
Only prophets whom no one believes
witness such things,
only those who do their job badly.
And everything happens so quickly,
as if they had not spoken.
Now I remember clearly
how people, seeing me, broke off in mid-sentence.
Their laughter stopped.
They moved away from each other.
Children ran towards their mothers.
I didn’t even know their vague names.
And that song about a green leaf–
nobody ever finished singing it in front of me.
I loved them.
But I loved them from a height.
From above life.
From the future. Where it’s always empty
and where it’s easy to see death.
I am sorry my voice was harsh.
Look at yourselves from a distance, I cried,
look at yourselves from a distance of stars.
They heard and lowered their eyes.
They just lived.
Not very brave.
Doomed.
In their departing bodies, from the moment of birth.
But they had this watery hope,
a flame feeding on its own glittering.
They knew what a moment was.
How I wish for one moment, any,
before–
I was proved right.
So what. Nothing comes of it.
And this is my robe scorched by flames.
And these are the odds and ends of a prophet.
And this is my distorted face.
The face that did not know its own beauty.
Wislawa Szymborska
trans. Grazyna Drabik and Sharon Olds
Wislawa Szymborska
Posted: February 4, 2012 Filed under: Deaths, Poetry | Tags: Wislawa Szymborska Leave a comment »Polish poet and Nobel laureate Wislawa Szymborska died last Thursday aged 88 (Guardian obituary). I came across her poetry first in Daniel Weissbort’s anthology The poetry of survival and loved it for her matter-of-fact, rather serious, but conversational voice. Her writing is like overhearing the private conversation of a teacher you’ve always admired.
You can read her speech on receiving the Nobel prize here:
This is why I value that little phrase “I don’t know” so highly. It’s small, but it flies on mighty wings. It expands our lives to include the spaces within us as well as those outer expanses in which our tiny Earth hangs suspended. If Isaac Newton had never said to himself “I don’t know,” the apples in his little orchard might have dropped to the ground like hailstones and at best he would have stooped to pick them up and gobble them with gusto. Had my compatriotMarie Sklodowska-Curie never said to herself “I don’t know”, she probably would have wound up teaching chemistry at some private high school for young ladies from good families, and would have ended her days performing this otherwise perfectly respectable job. But she kept on saying “I don’t know,” and these words led her, not just once but twice, to Stockholm, where restless, questing spirits are occasionally rewarded with the Nobel Prize.
Poets, if they’re genuine, must also keep repeating “I don’t know.” Each poem marks an effort to answer this statement, but as soon as the final period hits the page, the poet begins to hesitate, starts to realize that this particular answer was pure makeshift that’s absolutely inadequate to boot. So the poets keep on trying, and sooner or later the consecutive results of their self-dissatisfaction are clipped together with a giant paperclip by literary historians and called their “oeuvre” …
She carries on with the theme of ‘not knowing’ in this Guardian interview from 2000, found via the roundup of tributes to her on the Poetry Foundation blog. Also on the Poetry foundation blog, an old post translating Szymborska’s advice to would-be poets in a Polish literary journal:
To Marek, also of Warsaw: “We have a principle that all poems about spring are automatically disqualified. This topic no longer exists in poetry. It continues to thrive in life itself, of course. But these are two separate matters.”
To Ula from Sopot: “A definition of poetry in one sentence—well. We know at least five hundred definitions, but none of them strikes us as both precise and capacious enough. Each expresses the taste of its own age. Inborn skepticism keeps us from trying our hand at our own. But we remember Carl Sandburg’s lovely aphorism: ‘Poetry is a diary kept by a sea creature who lives on land and wishes he could fly.’ Maybe he’ll actually make it one of these days?”
I posted her poem In praise of my sister on my old blog; tomorrow I will post another favourite poem, Monologue for Cassandra.
Opera versus theatre
Posted: January 24, 2012 Filed under: Opera Leave a comment »I’ve got another post at MostlyFilm today – a collaboration between me and Lissy Lovett. She’s a theatre buff and I’m an opera fan and we’ve written a dialogue about the differences between the two theatrical experiences:
I really enjoyed the process of writing as a dialogue – it all seemed to come much easier than working on something alone.
Birdsong
Posted: January 20, 2012 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Abi Morgan, Birdsong, MostlyFilm, Phlip Martin, Sebastian Faulks Leave a comment »Today I have a post at MostlyFilm previewing the forthcoming BBC adaptation of Birdsong. I’m not actually mad about the novel, but I think there’s scope in it for a more interesting adaptation than this one:
La Traviata
Posted: January 10, 2012 Filed under: Opera | Tags: Giuseppe Verdi, La traviata 2 Comments »New Year’s treat: a trip to the ROH’s Traviata on the 2nd January.This was the first opera I ever saw live (a very sweet friend took me for my eighteenth birthday) and seeing it again was wonderful. It contains what’s surely a strong contender for my favourite scene in all of opera: the scene where Alfredo’s father visits Violetta and asks her to renounce his son, and she pleads with him to let her have just a few months more as she is dying of consumption in any case.
It’s this scene that lifts the opera above melodrama. A couple of weeks ago I wrote about Les parapluies de Cherbourg, about how the poignancy of that film stems from the fact that no character in it is acting in bad faith. In La Traviata it’s similar: Germont (Alfredo’s father) may enter the scene as the epitome of bourgeois morality, top hat, beard, cane and all, but although he represents a religious morality (count how many times in that scene he refers to God, heaven, blessings or angels) he’s not a cruel or hypocritical man. He doesn’t believe Violetta when she tells him she is dying, but he recognises the enormity of the sacrifice she is making and her sadness at agreeing to part from Alfredo. What obliges him to demand the sacrifice from her nonetheless is his belief that because Violetta and Alfredo aren’t married, their relationship has no future. What makes Violetta accede to his request is her sympathy for Alfredo’s sister, who is ‘si bella e pura’ (so beautiful and so pure) and her feelings of shame at not being similarly pure; it’s heartbreaking, but so human.
The music is the perfect expression of the struggle between them: Germont’s measured phrases contrasting with Violetta’s anguish until both of them lift their voices together. You can watch the whole scene here:
What Verdi is saying about social morality is still brilliant and important: that it’s not force (violence or law) which constrains people to conform to social pressure, but the way they internalise those pressures. Your own feelings of shame about your way of life are more repressive than any external preaching could possibly be. It’s this humanity that makes Verdi’s operas so gripping. The story about the courtesan who falls in love and then loses her lover could be superficial and utterly melodramatic, but in Verdi’s hands it’s full of subtle and complex emotions.
Photo above from the Royal Opera House flickr.
Simone de Beauvoir
Posted: January 9, 2012 Filed under: Birthdays, Quotations | Tags: Simone de Beauvoir Leave a comment »La dispute durera tant que les hommes et les femmes ne se reconnaîtront pas comme des semblables, c’est-à-dire tant que se perpétuera la féminité en tant que telle; des uns et des autres qui est le plus acharné à la maintenir ? la femme qui s’en affranchit veut néanmoins en conserver les prérogatives ; et l’homme réclame qu’alors elle en assume les limitations. «Il est plus facile d’accuser un sexe que d’en excuser l’autre» dit Montaigne. Distribuer des blâmes et des satisfecit est vain. En vérité, si le cercle vicieux est ici si difficile à briser, c’est que les deux sexes sont chacun victimes à la fois de l’autre et de soi; entre deux adversaires s’affrontant dans leur pure liberté, un accord pourrait aisément s’établir: d’autant que cette guerre ne profite à personne; mais la complexité de toute cette affaire provient de ce que chaque camp est complice de son ennemi; la femme poursuit son rêve de démission, l’homme son rêve d’aliénation; l’inauthenticité ne paie pas: chacun s’en prend à l’autre du malheur qu’ils s’est attiré en cédant aux tentations de la facilité; ce que l’homme et le femme haïssent l’un chez l’autre, c’est l’échec éclatant de sa propre mauvaise foi et de sa propre lâcheté.
The quarrel will go on as long as men and women fail to recognise each other as equals; that is to say, as long as femininity is perpetuated as such. Which sex is the more eager to maintain it? Woman, who is being emancipated from it, wishes none the less to retain its privileges; and man, in that case, wants her to assume its limitations. ‘It is easier to accuse one sex than to excuse the other,’ says Montaigne. It is vain to apportion praise and blame. The truth is that if the vicious circle is so hard to break, it is because the two sexes are each the victim at once of the other and of itself. Between two adversaries confronting each other in their pure liberty, an agreement could be easily reached: the more so as the war profits neither. But the complexity of the whole affair derives from the fact that each camp is giving aid and comfort to the enemy; woman is pursuing a dream of submission, man a dream of identification. Want of authenticity does not pay: each blames the other for the unhappiness he or she has incurred in yielding to the temptations of the easy way; what man and woman loathe in each other is the shattering frustration of each one’s own bad faith and baseness.
From the conclusion of The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir, 9th January 1908-14th April 1986. Trans. H.M. Parshley.
The little nuclear family is a paradigm that just doesn’t work
Posted: January 3, 2012 Filed under: Articles, Feminism | Tags: feminism, Jenny Turner, Nina Power, Toni Morrison Leave a comment »‘Sometimes the things that look the hardest have the simplest answers,’ Nina Power writes towards the end of her chapbook, One Dimensional Woman. She then hands over to Toni Morrison speaking to Time magazine in 1989. On single-parent households: ‘Two parents can’t raise a child any more than one. You need a whole community … The little nuclear family is a paradigm that just doesn’t work. It doesn’t work for white people or for black people. Why we are hanging onto it I don’t know.’ On ‘unwed teenage pregnancies’: ‘Nature wants it done then, when the body can handle it, not after 40, when the income can … The question is not morality, the question is money. That’s what we’re upset about.’ On how to break the ‘cycle of poverty’, given that ‘you can’t just hand out money’: ‘Why not? Everybody [else] gets everything handed to them … I mean what people take for granted among the middle and upper classes, which is nepotism, the old-boy network. That’s the shared bounty of class.’
…
And this, surely, is only the start. It’s obvious – now Power-Morrison has said it – that any politics worth having has to start with the nuclear family: its impossibility, its wastefulness, its historical contingency. Children are the messages a family, a society, a culture, a civilisation, sends into the future, and yet every day there comes more evidence that child-rearing as currently practised among the people with all the choices doesn’t seem to be working out. They overeat, our little messages, they starve themselves, they adore themselves when they’re not indulging in self-harm. They don’t want to study medicine or train as teachers when they can just be ‘in the media’. And this obviousness starts little fires sparking backwards across the decades. There’s Selma James and the strange marginalisation of her ideas, not to mention the way the whole family-in-a-house imago goes unchallenged, even by feminists, lesbian and gay couples, and single-parent campaigners, let alone in government, advertising, the popular media etc.
This has not always been the case. A critique of the tight-knit nuclear family as a breeding-ground of consumerism, neurosis, misery in general, was central to feminism in the 1970s. This is Adrienne Rich on ‘the institution of motherhood’ in Of Woman Born (1976): ‘It creates the dangerous schism between “public” and “private” life; it calcifies human choices and potentialities. It has alienated women from our bodies by incarcerating us in them.’ ‘There is much to suggest,’ she wrote, ‘that the male mind has always been haunted by the force of the idea of dependence on a woman for life itself, the son’s constant effort to assimilate, compensate for, or deny the fact.’
Jenny Turner in the LRB. Read it; it’s one of the best pieces on feminism I’ve read in some time.
2011
Posted: January 2, 2012 Filed under: Politics | Tags: 2011, Happy New Year 1 Comment »Good things
1. There is a crack, a crack in everything; that’s how the light gets in. I was born the day before Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Minister. I grew up left-wing in a period which possibly saw the worst defeat and demoralisation of the left in the twentieth century. I don’t want to seem too optimistic about what will happen in the next few years, but for the first time in my life it feels like anything might happen, which is in a lot of ways better than the feeling that nothing will change.
2. The Arab spring. None of the things I’m listing here are unambiguously good and the some of the political and military repression following the Arab spring has been (and continues to be) truly horrific. But the civil resistance across the Middle East and North Africa has been an astonishing, almost unbelievable development, and the courage of the protestors is unimaginable.
3. UK popular opposition. My twitter bio reads: ‘Forthe broad democratic alliance!’ which is a joke about something my dad always says. But one thing that seems heartening to me this year is the way that opposition to the coalition’s austerity measures has forged links between different groups and generations. Trade unionists visiting the Occupy movement; UKUncut activists developing links with unions; broad-based, coordinated strike action; even poor beleaguered Ed Miliband seems to be starting to understand how mainstream opposition to austerity is, despite the best attempts of the Blairite dinosaurs of his party. (They’re relics of the pre-2008 age, Ed, don’t listen to them!)
4. The Murdoch crisis. Horrific details, yes. Appalling corruption of our media and politics, yes. But you can’t tell me you didn’t enjoy it! (Fingers crossed that 2012 sees the crisis spread to the Mail.)
Bad things
1. The Eurocrisis. It’s astonishing to have confirmed for you what you’ve always secretly suspected: that no one who has any power, knowledge or influence combines ‘knowing what to do’ with ‘being able to do it’. Here’s Paul Krugman’s Eurovenn, a visual guide to the ongoing situation: 
2. Climate change. As though the Eurocrisis hadn’t proved the total lack of any vision or courage among the politicians of the world.
3. The coalition government. I don’t need to expand on this.
4. Technocrats and the threat to democracy. The technocratic governments in Europe are a pretty chilling development. The installation of leaders whose task is to push through changes that the population wouldn’t agree to democratically seems one of the most sinister effects of the Eurocrisis and one which has forced me to reassess my attitude to quite a lot of things – not least, to the far right and the threat they pose, not necessarily because they could directly take political power, but because the kind of disorder they can create could be used as a reason to impose an undemocratic régime.
5. The end of the Iraq war. Not, of course, that I’m sorry that it’s ended. But it hasn’t really ended, has it? The pointlessness of eight years (and counting) of slaughter and destruction is unutterably sad and terrible.
I Stood on a Tower
Posted: January 1, 2012 Filed under: Poetry | Tags: Alfred Lord Tennyson, New Year's Eve Leave a comment »I stood on a tower in the wet,
And New Year and Old Year met,
And winds were roaring and blowing;
And I said, ‘O years, that meet in tears,
Have you all that is worth the knowing?
Science enough and exploring,
Wanderers coming and going,
Matter enough for deploring,
But aught that is worth the knowing?’
Seas at my feet were flowing,
Waves on the shingle pouring,
Old year roaring and blowing,
And New Year blowing and roaring.
Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Old Year’s Night 2011
Posted: December 31, 2011 Filed under: Personal, Uncategorized | Tags: 2011, Happy New Year 3 Comments »Here are the things I enjoyed most in 2012:
1. My Bernina sewing machine. I used to have a cute little retro Singer given to me by a friend which I used a lot, but this year my grandma passed on to me her nearly new Bernina and it’s a wonderful, wonderful machine. There’s nothing quite so satisfying as sewing on a really good sewing machine; I keep it permanently set up and probably three days don’t go by without my using it.
2. Wagner. I listen to the opera from the Met on Radio 3 fairly religiously on Saturday evenings, but I’ve never really been able to get my head round Wagner on the radio. This year I realised that watching it live makes all the difference: I saw Der fliegende Holländer and Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg at the Royal Opera House and was utterly gripped all the way through both operas. Something about the theatrical experience made it suddenly work for me. My other favourite opera experience of the year was seeing Don Giovanni in the Theatre of the Estates in Prague – the theatre in which Mozart himself first conducted that opera, which was like a gorgeous eighteenth century chocolate box, all blue and gold and dainty.
3. Union work. My UNISON branch elected me branch secretary (I was unopposed; the position is not hotly contested) earlier in the year and although it’s sometimes stressful, I’ve found it very fulfilling; I’ve been doing my job for seven years now and having something new to do has made work so much more enjoyable and satisfying. My union colleagues are all such fun and admirable people; being around them and working with them is great. It’s been an interesting year to be in a union, too.
4. Gardening. Well, sort of. I’ve been living in a house with a proper garden for a year now and last year I never really made much headway with it. But thinking about it and reading about it and working out what I wanted to do has been all-absorbing and I have great plans for next year.
5. Economics. My dad once said he learned geography – or at least, where places were – from the news. This year I have done the same with economics. Not that I am anything like an expert, but just following the news has taught me a lot I never knew before about how economies work and why. Particularly useful: the FT and John Lanchester’s pieces in the LRB.
6. Twitter. Such a lot of news has happened this year and Twitter has been both useful and fun as a way of keeping up with it. Some of the people on Twitter I find most interesting and funny (excluding people I actually know in real life, who are also very interesting and funny): Chris Brooke, infamy_infamy, bat020, Agata Pyzik, Mark Fisher, Maud Newton, Bloomsbury Fightback, and the late DSG.
7. MostlyFilm. I’ve really enjoyed reading and writing for the MostlyFilm blog this year, after it rose like a phoenix from the ashes of the Guardian Film Talkboards. What I like about it is what a collection of people’s different enthusiasms it is: I’ve read lots of pieces on things I wouldn’t have thought I’d find interesting but which I enjoyed because the interest of the writer shone through.
8. London. I ended up reading quite a few books about the history of London this year, of which the most fascinating of all was Jerry White’s London in the 19th century. I learned so much about London, it’s given me an appetite for more.
9. Ingeborg Bachmann. Of all the authors I read for the first time this year, the best and my favourite was Austrian poet and novelist Ingeborg Bachmann, who I’ve actually been managing to read in German, which is a reflection of the clarity and elegance of her style, I think. I will try and write more about her later in the year.
I could make it ten things but the last would be a push, I think. Instead, here are my resolutions for next year. I always make lots of portentous resolutions to improve myself and become a nicer, better-educated person, but this year I think I’m going to give myself a break. So my resolutions for 2012 are:
1. Don’t get so stressed out about stuff.
2. Don’t run up library fines.
3. Write more.
4. Garden more.








