At 10:35 on an early summer's morning, John Lanchester sat down at his study desk, switched on his new Dell computer, opened up the word processing programme that the computer had come with and began

ah xpost!

I want to hang Lanchester over a bridge by his ankles until he tells me what the hell he thinks he's doing writing like this.

It made Quentina smile and it made her think of her date with Mashinko

that sort of thing is just offensive - the double 'made'.

is the double made maybe supposed to sound faux-naif like maybe it's supposed to be like that pitchfork reviews guy?

yes, but if i'm remembering correctly - the faux-naif is the exclusive reserve of immigrants, women and the infirm. i think - and here i feel like attempting to claw my way out through the wall behind me - it's gesturing at a sort of innocence.

that's gross. I was at the pub earlier this week and they had this on their free bookshelf, I almost took it but couldn't be fucked and took mark kermode's bookcast instead

He uses the word 'fizzy' twice in one sentence as well, that's just plain lazy.

There's also a scene where a grown woman uses the phrase "our tummies will be rumbling" when they're having a disagreement. It's all part of this infantilised language that everyone uses, narrator included.

Are these people poor, but happy?

everybody should read this book. i keep panicking - it's like peering into a void - and need other people round to reassure me, like Matt.

In fact I keep wanting to construct an argument that it's the opposite of Chesterton's view of fairy stories (brought to mind by dow quoting him on the What Are You Reading thread). Like a lot of Chesterton, that sort of thing makes me slightly queasy, but the principle that fairy stories remind us of the magical uniqueness of the world - by saying that an apple is golden they remind us of the miracle of an apple being green - is the exact opposite of what Lanchester is doing.

Like a pellucid moron he insists with bleak clarity upon a more unrewarding level of awareness below that of our generally indifferent quotidian sensation. It is in this respect subart, unart.

It's that thing of leaving nothing to chance - if he had not specified that the chocolate (and sweets) were not industrially manufactured what sort of mad things might we have conceived otherwise? What sort of crazed alternate universe he is at all costs preventing us with words of adamantine dullness from potentially visualising? He is the anti-imaginer. He is, as Matt has shown so well with that awful terrible list of things in the newsagent, a compulsive includer of the untelling detail. I say again - nothing is left to chance, as I say. The reader is forced into a fearful editorial practice of escapology.

In fact it reminds me of a quote I remember from another book, which shows rather more clearly what elevates Lanchester's style to the plane of criminal lunacy.

It's from an academic book and a theoretical framework is described as being 'firmly embraced'.

That ‘firmly embraced’ worried me. Just writing ‘embraced’ won’t cause your reader to become concerned that the embrace is reluctant or impartial. By writing 'firmly', it makes it seem that there is some doubt about the matter.

This is paradoxically what Lanchester does when he pathologically fills in every detail. It has the curious effect of making everything seem open to doubt, ersatz, possibly not true but for the asseverations of the author, precarious, balanced on the void. And before anyone suggests it, it's not precarious in a social or economic sense, possibly justifiable by the subject matter of the material, but in a strong tonal and epistemological sense. You start to feel frightened at every sentence. What does its banality or meaningless conceal? It conceals nothing. What is intended? Nothing is intended. It's like staring into the mind of Poe's Raven and seeing Lovecraft's Mountains of Madness within.

To take another Chesterton line from the same essay: Remember, however, that to be breakable is not the same as to be perishable. Strike a glass, and it will not endure an instant; simply do not strike it, and it will endure a thousand years. Such, it seemed, was the joy of man, either in elfland or on earth; the happiness depended on NOT DOING SOMETHING which you could at any moment do and which, very often, it was not obvious why you should not do.

This is Lanchester - he is uncontrollable smasher of glasses.

all the applause.gifs

not reading the book though, soz

dammit.

Lanchester loved his book, loved the profusion of it, the sheer amount of stuff in the narrow space and the sense of security it gave him - The Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph and The Sun and The Times and Top Gear and The Economist and Women's Home Journal and Heat and Hello! and The Beano and Cosmopolitan, the crazy proliferation of text, the dozens of types of industrially manufactured similes and syllogisms, the baked metaphors - white bread and Marmite and Pot Noodles and all the other inedlible things that the English language ate - it all felt snug and cosy and safe, his very own space...

That ‘firmly embraced’ worried me. Just writing ‘embraced’ won’t cause your reader to become concerned that the embrace is reluctant or impartial. By writing 'firmly', it makes it seem that there is some doubt about the matter.

i encountered "seriously embraced" in a work context once, like regarding ISO9000 qualification or health and safety or a diversity policy or something

I was going to give credit where it was due, to say that Capital picks up markedly in part three as things actually start happening to the characters. But then I read this sentence, which is surely the nadir of Leaving Nothing To Chance:

The London centre for asylum and immigration tribunals, where cases concerning the immigration status of asylum-seekers to the UK are decided, was near Chancery Lane.

I can't even...

Superb. Also for using two tenses in one description.

I just had to go back and check that the mangling of tenses there wasn't my work, but no, Lanchester actually wrote that.

Another thing that I don't think has been touched on upthread is that Lanchester's sense of the colloquial is just clunky and appalling on every level. In this scene, a group of investment bankers are playing poker. Note that Lanchester hangs out with bankers in real life, he isn't actually attempting to write patois or anything:

"You've got naff-all, I can tell", said Slim Tony. Michelle said nothing, did nothing. "Typical girl, they either fold every time you play back at them or they pretend to have a cock. Not just any cock, a really massive one. Big, big cock. Have you got a big, big cock, Michelle?"

And later, when Freddy Kamo is on a coach being jeered by opposing fans:

There were always plenty of opposing fans around to shout abuse, flick V-signs, call out player-specific insults (poof, black bastard, arse bandit, sheep-shagger, fat yid, paedo goatfucker, shit-eating towelhead, Catholic nonce, French poof, black French queer bastard etc etc) and once, take down their trousers and moon the coach

I'm assuming Lanchester enjoyed writing this section quite a lot, which is the only reason I can think of for its inclusion, especially when you consider the weird void of wit there.

black French queer bastard

Freddy caught a look in the manager's eyes, and stood up. The owner waved him back down again but Freddy stayed standing.

‘Good luck today,' the owner said in his slow, clear English. ‘Be fast!'

‘Yes sir. Thank you. I will try my best.'

"this was a great joke"

that "player-specific insults" still makes me laugh. what happens if you remove player-specific? people vaguely swearing about hypothesised opponents?

astonishingly, in a coup of literary style, lanchester then manages just that.

ts: poof vs. french poof

I know I shouldn't expect reason from Lanchester lists, but "catholic nonce" is especially provocatively baffling to me.

I haven't read this book but I'm sure this thread is 100% more entertaining than it could possibly be. I mean, why describe a fucking newsagents, as if there is someone out there reading this book who has never been in a newsagents before and noticed the things that they sell in there?

It's the aesthetic delight of a 100% fabricated quotidian mundane and the way the style effortlessly conveys the content.

i wd still offer the defence, which is really no defence, that i think he thinks he's doing some kind of Martian Sends a Postcard Home alienation affect thing

still makes him terrible, just terrible in a different way

DFW describes things in microcosmic detail too, but it's used as a literary device in which, say, the glint of light off a ballpoint pen suggests an abstract ray of hope in a world of mundanity. Here it seems to be mundanity for the sake of filling up space.

This thread really makes me want to read the book.

Balls to it, it's bought. I'm going to hate this.

It hadn't occurred to me to buy the thing until you posted that. Now I feel gravity inexorably pulling me in that direction.

the whole thing is on some russian site if u search for any of the excerpted phrases itt

If I don't spend cash on it, I'm not committed enough to it.

The last ILB rec I picked up was Alice Munro (thanks Ismael), which I was expecting to love (and did), so intersting to go in the other direction.

i have already seen this book in a number of charity shops (and i think that's where matt dc got his copy), no need to buy new

Yep got it second hand - speculative punts and hatereads always second hand.

Swear to god the intersting typo was unintentional.

" DFW describes things in microcosmic detail too, but it's used as a literary device in which, say, the glint of light off a ballpoint pen suggests an abstract ray of hope in a world of mundanity. Here it seems to be mundanity for the sake of filling up space"

DFW also wrote amazing sentences. Lanchester writes like he's putting together a primary school report about late capitalism.

I finished this on Friday, it doesn't even really have an ending, it just sort of stops. It does clear up the central "mystery" that ties the book together but I challenge anyone to be remotely interested in that.

that mystery isn't maintained in any meaningful way throughout the book - i still haven't finished this, but that description is exactly what i was expecting.

speculative punts and hatereads

was just reading (and cringing with) this thread thinking how alien this concept is to me. i mean i'll do any old film or album for the morbid craic but a whole shitty book seems like an affront to life somehow

i guess i'm not a very cultivated reader tho tbf

i've read as much of this book as i'm ever gonna read on this thread, but i'm neurotic about life being too short

seriously! when i think of the number of books that are actually good (or even just pleasurable) that i haven't read, how could i have time for hatereads?

tbh though that is the sort of thinking that if you transposed it to music would just leave you listening to the beatles and some bits off a wire magazine top 100 weird records list

literary poptimism, is it plausible

there's the simple fact of the time and effort it takes me to read but also i don't actively listen to things i think i'm gonna hate either. and there's plenty of pop/genre fiction i do like, so i dunno, i'm not gonna form a final codified judgement on what i'll waste time on before inevitable death and dissolution

Just have an afternoon off to skim through the "good" bits innit? Sure there are more choice bits to quote on this thread.

By this point its the only reason to read this.

tbh though that is the sort of thinking that if you transposed it to music would just leave you listening to the beatles and some bits off a wire magazine top 100 weird records list

wait, idgi, who is the beatles in this analogy? in the world of literary poptimism, Lanchester is, like, Frank Turner or something. comfortably 6music.

I think literary poptimism is plausible, I have read 50 shades and the novelisation of gremlins and a bizarre forgotten evangelical novel published in the 20s but I'm not gonna read capital by john lanchester

tru kult lit-popism = all urban fantasy all the time

There doesn't, unlike music or film, seem to be enough high-visibility product published (or consumed) on a weekly basis to drive a poptimism.

Otherwise we'd have way more threads here.

Can't read fast enough for one thing, compared to hearing the whole top 20 in an hour

also i think ilb posters aren't super interested in dealing w/ the most populist and formalist genres? i mean: people here do not post about YA novels, urban fantasy, crime, miseryporn, celebrity biography, romance novels, etc. (all of which tend to be much faster reads than contemporary literary fiction)

iirc there was a period where ILB was more poptimist - quite early doors, when there was a larger group of posters.