|
|
|
|
 |
 |
   |
review Global
obsession Zia Mohyeddin
column
Writing about writing JM Coetzee's latest book is an uneasy mix of autobiography and metafiction By Shamsulhaq
Summertime By JM Coetzee Publisher: Harvill Secker Pages: 266 Price: Rs 1100 'Summertime' is the latest work of South African novelist and literary critic John Maxwell Coetzee, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2003. It is the third of a series of memoirs following 'Boyhood' and 'Youth', and focuses on Coetzee's life in the years 1972-1977 when he returned to South Africa after receiving his PhD from the US -- and was finding his feet as a writer. Reading Summertime is more like meditation than entertainment. Coetzee's writing is always intensely personal. He writes with a heightened self-awareness about what he knows and his fiction is usually autobiographical. In the case of this particular book, his autobiography is fictionalised and he confesses to having made up dialogues and incidents to better illustrate what really matters -- the emotions and the impressions left behind. Coetzee 'fictioneers' his book by writing in the words of a young biographer (Vincent) researching a book he plans to write on the late, Nobel Prize winning writer JM Coetzee. His research is made up of interviews from people referred to in JM Coetzee's notes and the notes themselves. The list of interviewees -- a couple of former mistresses, a cousin, a colleague and a love interest who spurned him -- is rather narrowed down by the fact that along with the author, most of the people close to him are also deceased. What they can offer about the subject is limited. They all seem confused about why anyone would want to write about JM Coetzee who, it turns out, was an unremarkable man with no special sensitivity, "no original insight into the human condition" that one would expect from a famous writer. The author goes off on many tangents on the lives and stories of the interviewees which serve to highlight the context and how a man exists as a chapter, a paragraph or a sentence in the lives of so many people he interacts with over a lifetime. The asymmetry of the relationships is also interesting -- someone the great writer idolised and even based a character of his book on merely thought him a brief distraction from a distressed marriage. Another with whom he had a much longer relationship was surprised and hurt that she did not feature at all in any of his books. Coming from the deeply fractured society that is South Africa, Coetzee's writing always features an oppressive cloud of colonialism and apartheid. He isn't political though and this oppressive cloud is always in the backdrop. He feels he was "reluctant to invest too deeply in the country, since sooner or later our ties to it would have to be cut…" He blames the macho Afrikaner culture for stunting him emotionally. This comes out especially strongly in his description of his relationship with his father. For all the criticism of Afrikaner culture, Coetzee strongly identifies with it. To quote his friend, "he felt there was no way in which he could separate himself off from the Afrikaners while retaining his self-respect, even if that meant being associated with all that the Afrikaners were responsible for, politically." Through killing himself in the book and his tongue-in-cheek presentation of himself as a writer, Coetzee has taken the chance to review his own body of work that won him the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2003 and give his own pronouncement on his writing career. He describes his former mistress describing him as "asexual" and "barely a man" while suggesting the early loss of his mother as the reason. This is his impression of himself and his writing style -- detached and does not evoke strong emotions. His prose is simple and elegant and a welcome relief from the flowery, overindulgent metaphors and similes that have begun to proliferate in writing nowadays. Coetzee's concluding opinion on his writings (or his fictionalised opinion) is: "In general I would say that his work lacks ambition… Nowhere do you get the feeling of a writer deforming his medium in order to say what has never been said before, which is to me the mark of great writing. Too cool, too neat, too easy. Too lacking in passion." He believes he lacks the courage to commit himself wholly to his writing and holds back a little. This is also possibly the reason he spends his life as a teacher, seeking refuge in academia even though he believes he was an unexceptional teacher with not much of a following amongst his students. The book being what it is -- a biography of a writer and a commentary of his writing -- one needs to be familiar with his work to really get the most out of it. Those looking to sample him for the first time would be better off saving 'Summertime' for later and starting from the beginning with his two Booker Prize winning books 'The Life and Times of Michael K' and 'Disgrace'.
Summertime is available at The Last Word Global obsession The authors of the book delve into qualities it takes to be wealthy, the process of becoming rich and what people do once they are rich By Jazib Zahir
All the Money in the World By Peter Bernstein and Annalyn Swan Publisher: Vintage Books Pages:432 Price: Rs 850 Money makes the world go round. At least that's the message imparted by this top selling non-fiction title that honours our global obsession with wealth by lionising the financiers, technologists and entertainers who have beat everyone to the top of the money mountain. The Forbes 400 list has been an annual compilation of the individuals with the highest net worth in the United States. The winners have been coveted in global pop culture as much as any Hollywood or NBA star. This book systematically studies the list over the course of several decades to unearth interesting trends and posit explanations. It is neatly divided into three distinct sections which in turn explain the personal qualities it takes to be wealthy, the process of becoming rich and what people do once they are rich. The first section is heavy on statistics and the results of empirical studies in psychology and sociology. We learn that some of the richest benefited from their education while others were notorious high school or college dropouts. We learn that the rich come from all racial and geographic backgrounds but what they seem to share is an infinite appetite for risk and willingness to put everything on the line to amass a fortune. There are interesting anecdotes of how many of the filthy rich are poker addicts and have demonstrated their love for taking a gamble at various points of their lives. To the credit of the authors, they acknowledge the substantial role of serendipity and fate in the process and highlight it in a separate chapter. The second portion is focused on the actual mechanism these stars have adopted to achieve their personal riches. This part kicks off with an ode to the blue-collar class with stories of heart-warming rags-to-riches tales of people who engaged in hard labour as children until they got their lucky break. The book then meanders into historical accounts of the rise of the American technology, finance and entertainment sectors and the wealth they have spawned. There are interesting and even unique insights into how wealth accumulated around certain geographic regions. It's incredible how the "get rich quick" psyche is ingrained in some American children; seventh graders at a premier Silicon Valley high school actually play 'Who wants to Be a Millionaire?' to hone their math skills. But the anecdotes of the individuals responsible for these activities leave something to be desired. Such historical accounts have been beaten to death in many other studies and the way to distinguish this book would have been to involve more personal interviews with the protagonists or to adopt a less factual and more narrative format. The final portion is probably the biggest eye-opener. Now that you are sitting on mountains of cash what do you do with it? There are sordid tales of debauchery starring the likes of Paris Hilton. And there are tales of flaunting excesses like Oracle CEO Larry Ellison and his gargantuan persona yacht that struggles to fit in most harbours of the world. There is drama as the richest compete for the biggest prizes such as art masterpieces and personal retirement plans that might be enough to feed an entire nation. And there is the seedy underbelly of trophy wives and a succession of divorces and personal instability. This part of the book is likely to appeal to celebrity watchers and gossip aficionados. But there are also heartening tales of philanthropy and how people give back to their community. Andrew Carnegie, the famed steel industrialist set the tone by erecting a network of public libraries across the expanse of the United States. In the modern day, the likes of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have chosen to devote their life savings to charitable causes. The most interesting accounts involve descriptions of family relations and the kind of lifestyles and sagely advice these iconic men and women have attempted to pass on to their children. For example, Warren Buffet has gifted each of his children a multi-million dollar charity foundation to set the precedent for their future. If the book has a central weakness it is that the theme is just not striking. Too many magazines and television shows help us peer into the lives of the rich and understand the good, the bad and the ugly about them. What is special about the book is that it has condensed so many aspects of the lives of the rich into a compact text readable in one sitting. As such the book flows well and many of the illustrations and insets are quite creative. But maybe a book that had just elaborated on one of these sections and had really confronted us with some glaring conclusions was more likely to stand the test of time.
Zia Mohyeddin column The tragedy to end all tragedies I was always under the impression that the story of King Lear is known to every university graduate in our country until I met a young man who came to see me last year, seeking a job. He had a master's degree in English from Karachi University. Had he read "Lear?" I asked him. "Oh yes," he replied, nodding his head several times. "Tell me something about it," I urged him. "Well", he said, after running his fingers across his forehead, "There is this king and he has three sons… " For other similar Masters of Art (in English) let me refresh their memory: King Lear decides to abdicate and divide his kingdom between his three daughters. When the youngest, Cordelia, refuses to make a public declaration of love for her father, she is disinherited and married to the king of France without a dowry. One of the King's closest advisers, Kent, defends her and is banished by Lear. The two elder (evil) daughters, Goneril and Reagan, and their husbands, inherit the kingdom. Another close companion of the King, Gloucester, deceived by his bastard son, Edmond, disinherits his legitimate son, Edgar, who is forced to go into hiding to save his life. Lear, now stripped of his power, quarrels with Goneril and Reagan about the condition of his lodging in their households. In a rage he goes out into the stormy night, accompanied by his fool and Kent, now disguised as a servant. They encounter Edgar now disguised as a mad beggar, Poor Tom. Gloucester goes to help Lear but is betrayed by Edmond and captured by Reagan and her husband who as punishment put out his eyes. Lear is taken secretly to Dover, where Cordelia has landed with a French army. The blind Gloucester meets but doesn't recognise his son Edgar, who also leads him to Dover. Lear and Cordelia are reconciled but in the ensuing battle are captured by the forces under the command of the two wicked sisters. Goneril and Reagan are in love with Edmund, who encourages them both. Discovering this Goneril's husband, Albany, forces Edmond to defend himself against the charge of treachery. A knight appears to challenge Edmond and, after fatally wounding him, reveals himself to be Edgar. News comes that Goneril has poisoned Reagan and then committed suicide. Before dying, Edmund reveals that he has ordered the death of Lear and Cordelia. He attempts to reprieve the order but it is too late.
***** It is a tribute to Shakespeare's genius that every time you see one of his major tragedies you find newer meanings in it. I have seen more than a dozen Lears on stage (not to mention some on the screen) and each one has enabled me to discover fresher nuances in the play. It is but natural that some of the Lears moved me more than the others. I will say this much though that even the most ordinary Lear has not failed to move me to tears. Gielgud says that when he was preparing for his Lear at the Old Vic, the redoubtable director, actor, and highly esteemed Shakespearian scholar, Granville-Barker, kept reminding him that Lear was an "oak and not an ash," Sir John with all his magical qualities could never be an oak. The only actor who convinced me that Lear was solid oak was the late Paul Scoffield, a rare jewel amongst thespians. I was delighted when, during Shakespeare's birthday celebrations at Stratford-Upon-Avon this year, (which I attended as a guest of the Shakespeare Birthday Trust) I was invited to see the latest production of Lear at the Courtyard Theatre. Before I say anything about this production allow me to make a few observations about the play which, to my mind, is a tragedy to end all tragedies. Theatre historians and scholars are agreed that Shakespeare wrote King Lear in the months between November 1605 and the summer of 1606. It was a time when, politically, England was going through a traumatic time. There had been lunar and solar eclipses and soon, too soon, after these events the Gunpowder plot was uncovered. The heavens themselves, it is said, were trying to warn an unsuspecting nation of impending doom. The Gunpowder plot was aimed at blowing up the king (James I) accompanied by all his children, nobility and commoners, judges, bishops and doctors. Had the plot succeeded it would have ruined the whole state and kingdom of England. It would have plunged the country into anarchy and civil strife. There was a special performance of the play at court in 1606. Some scholars wonder if Shakespeare wrote King Lear to let the king know that all was not well within the realm. Could the play be the thing to jolt the conscience of the king? asks Professor Rene Weis. "Things had come to a sore pass in England," he writes, "with freezing beggars drinking the mantles of green pools, the mad leading the blind, fools talking wisdom, kings embracing naked beggars… Someone needed to assume responsibility for this lamentable state." The King was either too insensitive to register the author's point or was too occupied with "lecturing his parliament on the divine rights of kings." Then again there are other interpreters of Shakespeare who contend that his intention could have been to present a play that did not offer a comforting political parable to the king. James I was trying hard to achieve political union between England, Wales and Scotland under his banner; he was keen to create a Stuart dynasty. Shakespeare could not have been unaware of this and yet he presented a story which extinguishes all hopes of either domestic or political succession, having the king die surrounded by the corpses of all his childless daughters. No other play of Shakespeare has been so modified as King Lear. Seventy five years after it had been written, Nahum Tate, in 1681, changed Shakespeare's text so that Lear and Gloucester both survive as indeed Cordelia, who marries Edgar, thus restoring the happy ending which Shakespeare had repressed. This version of Lear became so popular that for the next hundred and fifty old years it was Tate's, and not Shakespeare's, ending that held the stage. The greatest 18th century man of letters, Dr Johnson, preferred it to Shakespeare's Lear. He was unable to bear Cordelia's death. What precipitates the tragedy is the word '"Nothing" uttered by Cordelia when Lear asks her "What can you do to win a third more opulent than your sisters?" Lear is dumbfounded; "Nothing will come of nothing, speak again", he explodes with rage. Cordelia cannot heave her heart into her mouth. She tells her father.
(To be continued)
|
|
