This week's Sunday Guardian column.
One
of the books on my tottering unread pile is Shamsher Rahman Faruqi’s The Mirror of Beauty which is, by all
accounts, well worth reading – but I quail at committing myself to its over 900
pages. It’s not the only recent novel
longer than the norm. In a piece for the Guardian
last week, novelist Kirsty Gunn commented on a recent outcrop of “big books”, mentioning David Peace's Red or Dead (720 pages), Eleanor
Catton’s The Luminaries (832 pages)
and Richard House’s The Kills (1002
pages), with the last two longlisted for the Man Booker Prize. Reading Gunn’s
piece caused dismay: most novels nowadays are too long for their own good,
without there being more loose, baggy monsters being unleashed upon an
unsuspecting public.
She
speculates that economics might have something to do with it. In a recessionary
time, such volumes provide heft and spectacle, reassuring us that we’re doing
OK. I suspect it also could be something to do with beleaguered novelists being
told that reading and fiction don’t matter as much as they used to, and
defiantly taking a stand by composing volumes of Victorian length.
Gunn
goes on to point out that the three novels she mentions have “a whiff of the
avant garde” and aren’t conventional triple-deckers, a welcome relief. The
longest, The Kills, comprises four
connected narratives each of which earlier appeared separately online, and
there’s also a website with hours of video content related to the novel. This
approach reminds one of the iOS app The
Silent History, which calls itself “a new kind of novel” and consists of a
series of linked first-person testimonials. These two, then, could well be
canaries in the coalmine of the novel’s future.
To
return to the contemporary long novel as we know it, not all of them can be the
next Infinite Jest, Underworld or A Suitable Boy. Tedium sets in as the
pages accumulate: more and more characters’ lives are delved into, subplots
proliferate, details abound and eyelids droop.
As Somak Ghoshal recently wrote in an otherwise appreciative review of
Shovon Chowdhury’s The Competent
Authority: “Sub-plots seem to spiral out of control, characters get
forgotten, and loose ends are tied a little awkwardly.” (Where are editors’
blue pencils when you need them?)
An
argument often made for novels of greater length is that their bulk allows for
more immersion in a fictional world. While this may be true to some extent of
SF and fantasy, such engagement doesn’t necessarily call for a greater number
of pages. Take the novels of Franz Kafka. Or Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, less than 200 pages.
The
impact of a well-crafted novella is another reason to look askance at large
novels. As I’ve written before, the best of them emit radiance and sparkle far
beyond their size. Look at Henry James’ The
Turn of the Screw, Thomas Mann’s Death
in Venice or Joseph Conrad’s Heart of
Darkness, to name a few. The titles from independent publisher Melville
House’s ‘Art of the Novella’ series provide more excellent examples. For some
time now, ambitious novelists have been using the laser-like focus a novella
allows by thematically linking some of them together to create a larger whole.
Richard House’s The Kills apart,
there’s David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas,
for example, as well as Colum McCann’s Transatlantic,
another title longlisted for this year’s Booker.
Several
estimable European novels, too, are much shorter than their American and
British equivalents, while leaving as much if not more of an impression. Swiss
writer Peter Stamm recently said that he likes “reduction, concentration,
clarity” in writing, and the same can be said of many of his Continental
counterparts.
These
days, long novels have to earn their stripes, and only a handful do; the vision
of a Karl Knausgaard is uncommon. Randall Jarrell is often quoted as saying
that “a novel is a prose narrative of some length that has something wrong with
it”. Well, the longer it is, the more that can go wrong.