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

The collection is £0.99 on Kindle at the moment, if anyone is brave enough to read it.

i bought it the other day simultaneously thinking, i would pay no more than 99p and also wow what a bargain for such entertainment.

"there’s an odd sort of everyman quality to this epistemic problem, or problem of philosophical scepticism. but also it’s lanchester. so it’s v visible. it’ll oddly godlike being a reader in lanchester’s world. you see e hopeless innocent fallibility. and it’s v irritating."

this is one of the best things i've ever read posted on ilx lol. the lrb podcast where they paired him with patricia lockwood was chefs kiss. i think the moment where he was like "there's wine enthusiast blogs lol" has already been reported with alarm somewhere on this or the lrb thread.

btw my bf read capital about five years ago and it basically made him quit reading contemporary fiction and since than he hasn't read any fiction written after 1900.

bf otm

i know but he does annoying things like read every zola novel in a year and literally months later say he doesn't really remember anything about them

lol maybe that's Zola's fault?

oh great yr on his side

I'm trying to read Zola now and it's like I'm the one who's working in a coalmine.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51SQ7DVPV6L._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

the lrb podcast where they paired him with patricia lockwood was chefs kiss.

lol this was amazing.

Surprised this hasn't been picked up here. It's very ripe for ILB's view.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/nov/21/john-lanchester-i-started-writing-capital-in-2006-assuming-a-crash-was-about-to-happen

There were two big differences in my writing process when I worked on Capital. The first was that I drafted it on a computer. With my previous novels I wrote the first draft in longhand, on index cards. For my first novel, The Debt to Pleasure, I tried typing out those cards, but I started to come down with carpal tunnel syndrome. I switched to reading out the longhand version into tapes, which I then sent off to be typed up. (Startlingly expensive, by the way.)

Reading the book out loud, I’d hear all sorts of things that I wanted to change, so I’d end up with a second draft just through that process. The finished typescript would come back within days. Then I’d leave it in a drawer until I felt ready to do the editing and revising. Editing is more fun than writing because you know you have a whole book there, you just have to chisel it out of the ice. I followed that process for my first four books.

Capital was different because I knew it was going to be longer and have multiple narrative strands, and I needed to be able to see the whole thing from a top-down, aerial perspective. I used the word processing program Scrivener and it was very helpful in juggling a novel of that sort.

Once I’d finished a draft, that was when the next big difference kicked in. I need a few months after finishing a novel before I can see it sufficiently clearly to assess it, think about structural changes, and begin the process of revision. I’d always had fantasies that I would use those few months constructively: learn German, train for a charity 10k, take up tai chi. Instead what I usually did was look out of the window and then realise with a jolt that three months had gone past.

With Capital, I finally did act on the intention. I started writing the book in early 2006 on the assumption that some form of crash was about to happen. When the crash did happen, it was much bigger and more systemic than anything I’d expected. I was following the story in real time, and by the time I finished the novel, in early 2009, I knew quite a lot about the credit crunch.

I was worried that when I went back to revise the book, I would end up including too much of that knowledge and wreck the story. You can do a lot in fiction, but you can’t explain complex subjects at length without killing the narrative. “As Nigel looked towards the lights of Canary Wharf in the distance, he struggled to remember the definition of a collateralised debt obligation.” I decided to take three months or so and write a nonfiction account of the credit crunch as a way of quarantining what I knew about the financial crisis. That book was Whoops!

I wrote that pretty quickly, but the publication process was all-consuming, and it was about 18 months before I got back to Capital. It was like reading someone else’s book, and I’ve never had such a clear sense of perspective when revising – at the start I was worried that I was so distant from it that I wouldn’t be able to finish it. I was absolutely certain I’d got the timing wrong and nobody would want to read it.

With my previous novels I wrote the first draft in longhand, on index cards.

'debt to pleasure' = would maybe have like to have been nabokov when it grew up[...]

― desperado, rough rider (thomp), Thursday, March 1, 2012 12:23 AM bookmarkflaglink

nailed it

I used the word processing program Scrivener and it was very helpful

lol i started an "oh no" joek here (bcz i also use scrivener and oh no) and then i spotted the better joek nested inside this quote viz "the word processing program scrivener"

i mean a sub editor might have injected those four explanatory words or DID THEY NOT NEED TO

I agree that that's very amusing, especially in light of this 8-year-old thread title.

(Though I actually think it's appropriate to include such information, in an article.)

“As Nigel looked towards the lights of Canary Wharf in the distance, he struggled to remember the definition of a collateralised debt obligation.” is surely a perfect Lanchesterian sentence!

no thats not real

“I’ve never had such a clear sense of perspective when revising” is just incredible.

Credit where it's due, this piece on Neanderthals seems enjoyable and unobjectionable to me.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n24/john-lanchester/twenty-types-of-human

i got this far before snorting outright: "As with a mirror-gazer, we have a tendency to want everything to be about us."

(meaning i managed to clamber through his forced outrage at homo floresiensis being termed the "hobbit" without throwing my LRB across the room)

leaving the rest for later as i actually have paid work to get on with today

ok i lied i read a bit further and came to this and now i can't stop laughing:

(In the case of H. floresiensis, Indonesia’s leading palaeoanthropologist took the first skeleton away for himself, kept it for a period of months, and returned it severely damaged.)

another day volunteering at the betsy ross museum. everyone keeps asking me if they can fuck the flag. buddy, they wont even let me fuck it

— wint (@dril) February 20, 2012

The Lanchester neanderthal piece is not great. As Mark says: forced outrage at 'hobbit'; he says he feels much more distant from neanderthals than the neolithic tribes in britain and ireland 'but that's bollocks' - no need for profanity John, and it's not bollocks, the neanderthals were 30-40,000 years before the neolithic tribes and a different species. And wtf is this: lithics – the sciencey word for stone artefacts, used in preference to ‘tools’? 'Sciencey'? And yes it's used in preference to 'tools' because that could mean anything from a stick for getting termites out of a tree to a cordless power drill.

jesus.

Excellent post from Ledge!

At last someone takes on Lanchester's unnecessary, offensive (and here just misleading / mistaken) use of obscenity in print and his charmless colloquialism!

i class his charmless colloquialisms as 'blokey simplification' to make something sound unthreatening. and as you say, here mistaken. i think it's possibly more insidious than it looks, as it belongs, effectively to the world of Boris Johnson, and male workplaces where people (often middle-aged white men) feel threatened by difference, and need reassuring about it in comforting language.

its also the notion that you (a pleb) need this 'blokey simplification' to ease you into this concept that I (Lanchester) understand perfectly well

I can see how he might have got that notion with some of his financial pieces, where there might have been some particularly recondite concepts in need of simplification, blokey or otherwise; the worst bits in this piece read like they're written for ten year olds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emvySA1-3t8

lol, greatest 4th wall breakage

it's not even a good explanation of what commodities are

in the directors cut they spend half an hour arguing about the grundrisse

I've read it again (why?) and where he says "but that's bollocks", I think he's talking about the sense that the Neanderthals lived more remotely, "their very existence ... seems contingent and marginal" - and it's bollocks because we only find their remains in remote sites because those are the only places where remains survive and haven't been "built over or crushed underfoot". But it's right on the heels of talking about the emotional and empathic distance of the Neolithic tribes. And I think that's ok, going from emotional to physical distance, he's talking about his own immediate thought process and the 'bollocks' is a more considered judgment on that process. But that reversal muddies the fact that they were very different - distant - from us and our neolithic ancestors.

what a lot of time to waste on this.

he has a knack of making you waste time on his sentences.

a real sweet spot where you epistemological satisfaction is permanently deferred despite it seeming in reach initially. It's very subtle.

I have the sinking feeling that JL is currently in the process of writing the Great British Covid Novel.

oh no why did you have to say that.

it will be full of people interpreting epidemiological data in their heads; bin men surprisingly familiar with the lancet.

LADS LADS LADS

CHRISTMAS UNIVERSITY CHALLENGE

IT'S OUR HERO

lolol. i will need to give this a festive viewing.

Thank god for iplayer! Please say one of the answers was rău rău.

Without spoiling I am afraid that no, that was not one of the answers

I have to say it was difficult to square the avuncular type on UC with the almost mythic figure evoked on this thread

this is not to excuse his crimes

when you're in deep, his avuncularity becomes part of his criminal method.

his general knowledge was still woeful even if he was the least worst of a bad lot

also he gave off that misplaced confidence in his own lack of knowledge vibe a lot

its normally really hard right? these questions are weirdly easy, like easier than most quiz shows

im not even good at this kind of thing and im getting more than they are

the Christmas "celeb" ones always feel a lot easier than the regular show, and with good reason, cos look how badly they do even at this level

i know that your knowledge becomes professionally more constrained as you get older but the easiness of the xmas university challenge and the poorness of the performances always make me wonder about the hinterland of these avatars of public life.