Extreme Metaphors: Selected Interviews with J.G. Ballard, 1967-2008

To celebrate the paperback release this week of Extreme Metaphors: Selected Interviews with J.G. Ballard, 1967-2008, I've reprinted my Irish Times review of the 2012 hardback, below. (That original review has now vanished into the Irish Times archive, behind the paywall.) For those too busy to read the whole review: basically,Extreme Metaphors was my book of the year. I read it with delight, frequently chortling. An extraordinary alternate history of the 20th century, packed with prescient ideas which help explain the 21st.

- Julian

A photo of my copy of Extreme Metaphors, taken five minutes ago. The image links to more information, from the website of one of the editors, Simon Sellars.

 

Extreme Metaphors: Selected Interviews with J.G. Ballard, 1967-2008

Edited by Simon Sellars and Dan O’Hara

Fourth Estate

503pp, price £stg25


J.G. Ballard might be the greatest English writer of the 20th century. He was certainly, for much of the second half of that century, the least understood, and most misread, when he was read at all. In 1970, when Nelson Doubleday Jr, a senior executive at Ballard’s American publishing house, finally got round to reading a finished copy of The Atrocity Exhibition, he was so horrified he ordered all copies pulped. In the UK, the reader’s report for Ballard’s 1972 novel Crash famously said “This writer is beyond psychiatric help. Do not publish.”


But live long enough, and respectability eventually covers you, like jungle vegetation claiming a wartime runway. In 1984, his most nakedly autobiographical novel, Empire of the Sun, was shortlisted for the Booker Prize. Martin Amis says on the back of this handsome hardback collection of interviews, “Ballard will be remembered as the most original English writer of the last century.” Will Self concurs; “Ballard issued a series of bulletins on the modern world of almost unerring prescience. Other writers describe; Ballard anticipated.”


Ballard most certainly did. The chapter of The Atrocity Exhibition which so disgusted Ballard's own publisher was titled “Why I Want To Fuck Ronald Reagan”. In it, Ballard portrayed the former Hollywood actor, who’d co-starred with a chimpanzee in Bedtime for Bonzo, as President of the United States. It would be over a decade before reality caught up with Ballard’s imagination.


Indeed, some of the interviews here are almost comically prescient; Ballard predicted Facebook before the internet even existed. In 1979, dismissing the BBC and ITV news as “that irrelevant mixture of information about a largely fictional external world”, he describes a future in which we video everything, and


“…the real news of course will be a computer-selected and computer-edited version of the day’s rushes. ‘My God, there’s Jenny having her first ice cream!’ or ‘There’s Candy coming home from school with her new friend.’ Now all that may seem madly mundane, but, as I said, it will be the real news of the day, and how it affects every individual.” (And yes, he goes on to predict Youporn…)


He predicts the future; but he also questions the present. And many of the questions he raises here have not yet been answered. The real issue, behind all the fake issues, in this year's American election [2012], was summed up succinctly by Ballard in 1984, talking to Thomas Frick:


“Marxism is a social philosophy for the poor, and what we need badly is a social philosophy for the rich.”


As with a number of the more interesting American SF writers of his era (Philip K. Dick, Thomas M. Disch, John Sladek), Ballard became a science fiction writer by default. The SF market was the only available outlet for fiction this odd. But he is not a science fiction writer. He is not, indeed, a writer, in the normal sense of the term. Ballard is a visual artist. He makes the point again and again here; the greatest influences on his works are not other literary works; they are the paintings of the surrealists. As he said in an interview with James Goddard and David Pringle in 1975,“They’re all paintings, really, my novels and stories.”


And it is true. You read his spare, functional prose, and the most astonishing images erect themselves in your mind. The beauty of the sentence itself didn’t interest him. (This makes him hard to quote: reading Ballard, you drift into a dreamstate which can’t be evoked in a couple of lines.) Certainly he set much of his work in the future. But there isn't a space ship to be found. (Well, OK, one, in an early story.) As mainstream SF explored outer space, J.G. Ballard explored what he came to call inner space. He wasn't similar to SF writers like Heinlein and Asimov and Arthur C. Clark, he was their opposite, a point he makes in an interview from 1975:


“You can’t have a Space Age until you’ve got a lot of people in space. This is where I disagree, and I’ve often argued the point when I’ve met him, with Arthur C. Clarke. He believes that the future of fiction is in space, that this is the only subject. But I’m certain you can’t have a serious fiction based on experience from which the vast body of readers and writers is excluded.”


I get the feeling J.G. Ballard passed Ireland by. He was seldom piled high on the front tables in Easons. Seen, perhaps, as too English for our tastes? But of course, he wasn’t English at all. His sensibility was formed in Shanghai, where he was born to English parents in 1930; and in particular in the vast civilian internment camp of Lunghua, where he was interned by the Japanese (at the age of 11), along with his family. In this book he frequently talks of never getting used to the England he first encountered aged 16, in 1946, as a traumatised child of the tropics.


Exiled from Shanghai, an alien in England, Ballard nonetheless had a spiritual home. No matter where his books were ostensibly set, Ballard always wrote about America; not as a place, but as a state of mind. America as a condition. America as a psychological disorder… He loved America. Though Crash is set in England, on the motorways connecting his quiet home in Shepperton to London, the cars in Crash are American cars. His Shanghai childhood — in an Americanized Asia — was a century ahead of its time. He grew up in the future. As a result, these interviews have aged well. It helps that Simon Sellars and Dan O’Hara have edited this 500 page book with such love, intelligence, and deep knowledge of the material and its context. Extreme Metaphors presents, in chronological order, 44 interviews from the many hundreds he gave. (The editors estimate the total wordage of the novels as 1,100,000; short stories, 500,000 words; non-fiction, 300,000… and interviews, 650,000.) The interviews they’ve chosen have a very low fluff content. Many of the best originally appeared in long-vanished, never-digitised, photocopied fanzines, and are genuine, deeply engaged and engaging conversations about important subjects. Nobody is trying to sell you anything (it’s often impossible to tell what book Ballard is supposed to be promoting).


The wide range of interviewers adds to the pleasure of the book. Ballard attracted intense, usually male, interviewers, who had a deep engagement with his work. There is a pleasantly kaleidoscopic effect, as each sees Ballard through the lens of their obsession. Fellow novelists Toby Litt, Will Self and Hari Kunzru take a literary approach. John Gray is philosophical. The Russian Zinovy Zinik gets Ballard to talk about Soviet utopias and dystopias. With Iain Sinclair, Ballard discusses the design of 1970s multi-story carparks in Watford. (Ballard; “They covered them in strange trellises. It was a bizarre time.”)


And he is very open. When Joan Bakewell says of Crash, “Now, this is a deeply disturbing book. Were you very disturbed when you wrote it?” he replies “I think I was. I think in a way the novel is the record of a sort of mental crash that I had in the mid-sixties after the death of my wife…”


Ah, death. Yes, it’s everywhere in his work. Ballard’s fiction is largely set in the dead spaces of the modern world. Underpasses, flyovers; abandoned and disintegrating runways; nuclear test sites; blockhouses; drained swimmingpools. The tide of humanity has gone out. What is left is returning to the natural world. The atmosphere is that of Max Ernst’s Europe After The Rain. The organic and the inorganic are inextricably linked. Things grow, and things crumble. The work of man is absorbed by the jungle.


It’s hard, reading this book, not to think of contemporary, Americanised Ireland, with its motorways and drive-thru McDonalds. Of Dublin, with its low corporate tax rate, reckless financial zone, and Euro-HQs of American corporations; with its expat communities of British, German and US workers in gated dockside settlements, surrounded by grinding native poverty; an open city, in a state too weak to defend itself. Dublin was, for a decade there, the closest thing Europe had to the booming, buckaneering Shanghai of the 1930s.


Now, in neglected Dublin back gardens, the outdoor hot tubs fill with dead leaves. Beyond the M50, the ghost estates are reclaimed by the whitethorn bushes. Ireland has become a Ballardian landscape. Given the extraordinary relevance of his work to Ireland’s psychological condition, it might be time for more Irish people to start reading J.G. Ballard. And this lovingly curated book of interviews is a fine place to start.


I will be very surprised if any novel this year gives me as much pleasure as this book. And I can guarantee (now that Ballard is dead) that no novel will contain so many provocative, intriguing, and visionary ideas.



Julian Gough is an Irish writer, living in Berlin, whose work was shortlisted this year for both the Bollinger Everyman Wodehouse Prize and the BBC International Short Story Award. His latest novel, Jude in London, is out now in paperback from Old Street Publishing.


ENDS.


An Open Letter To Jonathan Ive (and Apple)

Yes my short story, the iHole, was here. No, it's not there now...

Yes, there was an open letter to Jonathan Ive (and Apple) here. No, there isn't now.

Sorry about that. (If you are REALLY disappointed, here's a different free story instead, as a consolation prize. It's a comedy about a financial catastrophe involving goats. You might even like it more than The iHole.)

Back to the missing iHole.... For background, I'll just quote briefly from the original open letter:

 

"Dear Jonathan,

My name is Julian Gough. I write fiction. And I have a problem that only you can solve.

I recently wrote a short story called The iHole, and I think it’s the best I’ve ever written. It’s about the design of an imaginary product, and it’s set inside a fictional version of Apple, at some time in the near future. A fictional version of you is mentioned, by name, a couple of times, though he stays offstage as a character.

A major media player wants the story. Their editorial people love the story. The potential audience is a million plus. So far, so good. But now their lawyers have asked me to change the name of the fictional company from Apple, and change the name of the character I’ve called Jonathan Ive..."

 

 

OK, I put that letter, and the story, online three days ago. This morning, we've all come to a satisfactory resolution.  I'm really sorry if you came here to read The iHole and are disappointed. It will be available (legally) again later this year, honest. 

First, I want to say thanks to everyone - Minecraft fans, fiction fans - on Twitter and elsewhere, for their support, encouragement (and even editorial suggestions), over the past three days.

And second, I want to say that THERE ARE NO VILLAINS in what's just happened. Apple behaved perfectly, and the media organisation wanting to use The iHole behaved perfectly, as did their lawyers. I'm not mad at anyone and I don't want you to be mad at anyone. if there was a problem here, it was with archaic laws that make it hard for writers to write about the modern world.

In fact, I particularly want to defend the media organisation involved. There are precious few media outlets for short stories already, so the last thing these guys deserve is to be kicked for having the courage to take on an unusually tricky modern story like mine. They have behaved impeccably throughout, attempting to keep the story intact while still obeying the law.

My attempts to sort this out directly, by going over their heads, have almost certainly made their lives more difficult, for which I apologize. There's always a healthy creative tension between the artist and the industry, but I realize I generate a lot more tension than most. Sorry, everyone...

Finally, I'm happy that we seem to have sorted out a compromise that doesn't damage the story artistically. And I'm very happy to discover that such large numbers of people can still get excited, and passionate, over a short story.

Fond regards,

 

-Julian Gough

 

 Photo courtesy Sophie Gough Fives (age 7)

The Jude in London, Not The Booker Prize, Flashmob Book Club

OK, if you want something meaningful and life-changing to do this weekend (and who doesn't?), you can join this one-off, high-speed, hold-onto-your-hats, Jude in London/Not The Booker Prize, flashmob bookclub. Will the life you change be yours, or mine, or both? We won't know till Monday.

 

A totally gratuitous topless shot of the author. Wearing a David Shrigley temporary tattoo. Long story.Here's the deal: my publisher and I will let you download my brand new book, for free, here. (It's usually £12.99 in trade paperback, or £4.99 on Kindle). You read it over the weekend, throwing in comments and arguing with each other (and me) in the comments section below. And if you love the book - and only if you love it - you can vote for it to win the Guardian's (in)famous Not The Booker Prize, anytime before midnight London time, this Monday (17th of October, 2011).

 

If you choose to vote for Jude in London to win the Not The Booker Prize, you'll need to vote in the comments on this page, and write a very short review here to prove you've read it. Also, bear in mind there's several other excellent books on the shortlist for the prize (I'm thinking in particular of Spurious, by Lars Iyer, and King Crow by Michael Stewart), so feel free to check those out, or read and discuss them instead.

 

And yes, when it's all over, you can pay as much (or as little) as you think the book was worth, directly to me & my publisher Ben. (We'll split it equally between us.) But if you're really poor, forget it, the book is on me & Ben. (I was on the dole for ten years, learning to write. I know what it's like to be too broke to join in the fun.)

 

So, it's an experiment - we're going to try and assemble a virtual flashmob book club. If you have any friends who might be interested, tell them. And I'll see you in the comments section down below, later.

 

Just click to go to the download page for the Jude in London Trust Edition

Oh, if you're wondering will Jude in London be to your taste, here's some recent reviews from The Guardian, The Irish Times, and The Cadaverine. (And if you want to go straight to the source and judge for yourself, here's an instant extract you don't have to download, about goats and financial bubbles: The Great Hargeisa Goat Bubble...)

 

If you've any problems downloading the book free from here, just email me at JulianGoughsSecretEmailAddress@gmail.com, or tell me on Twitter (I'm @juliangough), and I'll email you a copy directly.

 

Have fun, be nice. Enjoy the weekend.

 

(EDIT: As soon as I posted this, and tweeted about it, the responses began - on Twitter. D'oh! I hadn't thought this through... So yes, we can talk about the book here; but also on Twitter (where I am @juliangough), using the hashtag #judeinlondon. I'll mosey back and forth. Talk soon...)

Help save civilization by reading a funny book

It's not every day you get a chance to help an award-winning impoverished author (er, that's me) solve a major dilemma, while simultaneously helping to humanise Capitalism, revolutionise Publishing, and save Civilization. But today is that day.

 

Jude in London - soon to be a major bookHere's the background (the dilemma will follow): my new novel, Jude in London, has just been longlisted for the Guardian's Not The Booker Prize. Now, The Not The Booker Prize is the most entertaining prize in the literary calendar; an annual online flame-war-slash-literary-debate that can be very helpful in drawing attention to unusual books. (The prize itself is a mug, worth about £1.50. But the glory is incalculable!)

 

BUT: For a long-listed novel to make the shortlist, readers have to nominate the book, and post a very short review on the Guardian website (to prove they've read it). The process is explained in detail here.

 

Here's the dilemma: Jude in London is officially published on September 6th. But the shortlist votes (and reviews) have to be in by this coming Wednesday. As my novel isn't in the shops for another fortnight, I don't have any readers yet to nominate it.

 

So, if any of you would like to read Jude in London, for free, I can send you a pdf of the entire finished book, nicely laid out and readable, today. And if you like it a lot, I'd be extremely pleased if you would post a 150 word review, and nominate it for the shortlist by Wednesday. You're under no pressure to review it or vote for it: only do that if you genuinely like it a lot and think it's worthy of going through to the next round.

 

There you go. Anyone who wants a free pdf of Jude in London, just ask in the comments below, or on Twitter (I'm @juliangough), or email me at juliangoughssecretemailaddress@gmail.com...

 

Now, here's the bit where we revolutionise Capitalism. My beloved publisher Ben, who runs Old Street, has conniptions at the thought of a professional-quality pdf of the entire book escaping into the wild before publication. Understandably so - he's sunk a lot of time and money into making a beautiful book out of Jude in London. But I think the future for peculiar writers like me has to be a kind of love-based mutant version of capitalism where you trust your readers, and in return your readers help to keep you alive. Because the free market isn't going to. Bear in mind, I've gone bust and been evicted while writing this book. I've wandered Europe homeless, relying on the kindness of friends (and the occasional stranger) to get it finished. So I, too, would like to see it, somehow, earn me enough to keep going and finish the next one.

 

So here's the deal: I give you the book for free. You don't have to review it or nominate it. But if you really like the book, if you read all the way to the end and have a good time... I'd love you to buy a copy for a friend. Does that seem fair?

 

And if you do like it, and buy a copy for a friend, tell me, and I'll tell my publisher, and maybe this trust-based model (where a book is always a present, and yet small publishers stay in business and weird writers get to eat) could take off.

The State of Irish Literature 2010

 

To my slight surprise (and immense delight), my story “The Orphan and the Mob” was chosen to represent Ireland in the ambitious new anthology, Best European Fiction 2010 (edited by Aleksandar Hemon, and introduced by Zadie Smith). The book’s publishers, Dalkey Archive Press, recently asked me five polite questions about the state of Irish literature. I replied with an intemperate rant. A slightly updated version follows below…

 

1. Are there any exciting trends, movement, or schools in contemporary Irish fiction? Who do you feel are the overlooked contemporary authors in Ireland who should be more widely read and translated?

 

I haven’t the faintest idea. As is traditional with my people, on achieving the status of Writer, I was strapped to an ass and driven from the City. I’ve lived in Berlin for the past few years. When I was in Ireland, I lived in Galway city, which is on the opposite side of the country to Dublin, where the novelists fester. Galway doesn’t really do literature. And I grew up in Tipperary, in the midlands, where writers were, until recently, killed and eaten. And quite rightly.

 

If there are exciting trends in literary Ireland, the excitement hasn’t made its way to Berlin yet. Anyway, I don’t believe in trends, movements, schools, and the whole German classification mania. That’s all made up after the fact, to help university libraries with their filing.  Each pen is held by a single hand. But for what it’s worth, none of my Irish friends read Irish books any more.

 

Indeed, I hardly read Irish writers any more, I’ve been disappointed so often. I mean, what the FECK are writers in their 20s and 30s doing, copying the very great John McGahern, his style, his subject matter, in the 21st century? To revive a useful old Celtic literary-critical expression: I puke my ring. And the older, more sophisticated Irish writers that want to be Nabokov give me the yellow squirts and a scaldy hole. If there is a movement in Ireland, it is backwards. Novel after novel set in the nineteen seventies, sixties, fifties. Reading award-winning Irish literary  fiction, you wouldn’t know television had been invented. Indeed, they seem apologetic about acknowledging electricity (or “the new Mechanikal Galvinism” as they like to call it.)

 

I do read the odd new, young writer, and it’s usually intensely disappointing. Mostly it’s grittily realistic, slightly depressing descriptions of events that aren’t very interesting. Though, to be fair, sometimes it’s sub-Joycean, slightly depressing descriptions of events that aren’t very interesting. I don’t get the impression many Irish writers have played Grand Theft Auto, or bought an X-Box, or watched Youporn. (And if there is good stuff coming up, for God’s sake someone, contact me, pass it on.) Really, Irish literary writers have become a priestly caste, scribbling by candlelight, cut off from the electric current of the culture. We’ve abolished the Catholic clergy, and replaced them with novelists. They wear black, they preach, they are concerned for our souls. Feck off.

 

But let us accentuate the positive, for the love of the Lord:

 

I do like Kevin Barry. His collection There Are Little Kingdoms had something special about it. Hints of glory ahead. (I gather there will be a novel. I’ll be buying it with cash money.) And from a few years back I loved Mike McCormack’s first book, the story collection Getting it in the Head. I always felt Mike McCormack had the great, demented, Irish small town heavy metal novel in him, he just needed to get it out. Then this week I discovered, from a very reliable source, that he’s finished his next novel, Pilgrim X, and it’s a post-apocalyptic Western set in the west of Ireland. Hurray! Exactly what Irish literature needs right now. I hear there’s a strong Scandinavian death metal vibe off it. This has all the signs of being his major breakthrough, and breakout.

 

For me, the only writer to grab the Celtic Tiger by the tail and pull hard while the tiger roared was Ross O’Carroll Kelly, the pseudonym of Paul Howard. And that was a newspaper column. (Collected every year into a new book – read them all if you want to understand Ireland’s rise and fall. No other writer caught it while it happened. The best, funniest, and most historically important run of Irish satirical journalism since Myles na gCopaleen.)

 

The Irish writer that most excited me recently was Diarmuid O’Brien, and he writes unproduced television scripts. Very funny, very Irish, on the edge of the surreal, a nice mixture of  WB Yeats and UK sitcoms. Padraig Kenny is another very funny, passionate, interesting guy trying to do interesting things with TV and radio scripts. (He has already managed to turn his Twitter rants into an artform.) Tommy Tiernan is Ireland’s most philosophical voice, but he has chosen stand-up comedy as his way of delivering his philosophical prose. Tiernan has read everything by Beckett, and everything by Lenny Bruce, and combined them. On the right night you will end up on the floor weeping tears of laughter and recognition as he takes Ireland apart. I remember reading Graham Linehan when he was only 17 and writing for Hot Press, and thinking, this guy is the funniest writer in Ireland. Of course, he got no recognition or encouragement in Ireland, so he went to London and co-wrote Father Ted, and Black Books, and now writes The I.T. Crowd. (Two days ago, as I write this, he won the British Comedy Award for writers.) The guy’s a genius, but he’s been working out of London, with UK broadcasters, since his early 20s, so he has no reason to address Ireland. (We had other geniuses, a decade or two back, but we didn't want them either. Cathal Coughlan tried to tell us who we were, spewing poetic vinegar with Microdisney, then sulphuric poetry with Fatima Mansions, but we didn't want to listen. Don't get me started on Cathal Coughlan, I'll cry.)

 

But then, why would our funniest, most original voices want to join a pompous, priestly, provincial literary community?  I’m pretty sure the best of the new, young Irish writers are writing for film, TV or computer games. Of course, anyone decent then has to go to England to get anything made. Another problem with Ireland is that its national broadcaster makes civil service television. Raidió Teilifís Éireann have never made a good comedy, they hardly ever make decent drama, and they treat writers like shit. Any work that has to go through an official Irish institution is slowly castrated by committee. All of those things are set up wrong. Our national theatre, The Abbey, is a weird, dysfunctional machine for setting fire to money. There is an almost total disconnect between the plays the Abbey puts on and the nation they are supposed to represent. (It does put on work by good playwrights: but with a thirty year delay.) Its most recent director, Fiach Mac Conghail, is doing his darndest, but turning round around The Abbey is like trying to do a wheelie in an Airbus full of American tourists. As an Irish playwright, you’ve a far better chance of getting your first play put on by the Royal Court in London than by any theatre in Dublin. Culturally, Ireland is a failed state. The fact is disguised because the UK and the USA have taken up the slack, and given our artists an outlet. But Ireland herself has, for example, never made a television program that anyone outside Ireland would want to watch. Given the quality of our writers, and the size of the global English-language TV audience, this is an immense national disgrace. (Just to repeat, everyone involved in Father Ted was Irish - but it was made by the British broadcaster Channel 4.) I know and like many of the individuals who work in RTÉ, but it is institutionally incapable of using the talents of its people, and it is institutionally incapable of change. Its news and sports coverage are excellent, the rest of it should be shut down. At the moment it’s a machine for wrecking talent, and the talented people inside it would be much happier under almost any other system.

 

The only area where Irish writing is thriving in Ireland itself is on the internet, because it’s a direct connection, writer-to-reader. Blogs captured, and capture, Ireland in a way literature  no longer does. Sweary Lady was brilliant (on her Arse End of Ireland blog), right through the Celtic Tiger years. Kav wrote the great Kav’s Blog. (Sweary and Kav both moved on to the Coddle Pot group blog…) And the quality, and quantity, of the swearing was and is very high on the Irish blogs, with guys like Twenty Major. The Irish swear better than almost anyone else on earth, bar maybe the Spanish and a couple of countries in Africa. That’s another area where I think recent Irish literary writers  – with the honourable exception of Roddy Doyle - have failed us badly. Ireland’s great lost playwright, Kevin McGee, was a master of the kind of swearing that had you desperately poking your inner ear with a biro to try and remove the images from your head. However, he was let down by professional theatre, moved into writing television soap operas (and translating the classics), and seems to have abandoned the stage. Who will swear for us now? Who will let rip the savage, guttural, primal utterance – half Yeats poem, half Guinness fart – required, DEMANDED, by the current state of Ireland? {EDIT: Probably Kevin Barry. Since this was first written, his apocalyptic story Fjord of Killary has appeared in the New Yorker, gracing its fragrant pages with North Galway lines as pinpoint accurate as these: 

“Fuckers are washin’ diesel up there again,” John Murphy said. “The Hourigans? Of course, they’d a father a diesel-washer before ’em, didn’t they? Cunts to a man.”

“Cunts,” Bill Knott confirmed.}


But I am biased, unstable, bitter, twisted, and living abroad, so don’t rely on my judgement. I’m sure there’s millions of brilliant writers in Ireland, I’m just mysteriously missing them every time I go there and look. In fact, aware of this, I outsourced the search to Twitter and asked who were the overlooked or neglected Irish writers that I’d missed. Here were the suggestions I got back, to balance my bile:

 

John MacKenna, Tomas O'Crohan, Mark O' Rowe (playwright and screenwriter), Antonia Logue, Sean O'Reilly, Vincent Woods (for “At the Black Pig's Dyke, the most underappreciated Irish play in the past 20 years.”), Gavin Duff, John Moriarty, Mike McCormack.

 

In an enjoyable and robust Twitter debate, Rosita Boland of the Irish Times took issue with the idea that O’Rowe, McCormack or O’Reilly were overlooked. This is a fair point, as all three do get excellent coverage in the Irish Times and on RTÉ, and O’Rowe has a powerful, thoughtful patron in Michael Colgan of the Gate Theatre.

 

Others on Twitter (some of them from lands far from Ireland) suggested Philip O Ceallaigh, Ken Bruen, and Dermot Healy, but it’s hard to think of these excellent, award-winning and acclaimed writers as being “overlooked” in any meaningful way.

 

As for Irish language writers – I’m not qualified to judge. They could all be geniuses for all I know.

 

 

2. Who are the contemporary European writers from other countries that are writing compelling fiction?

 

I’d only be bullshitting you if I tried to answer that question. My pitiful French, street-German, bar-Spanish and school-Irish are not remotely good enough to make literary judgements. I can barely mangle my way through comics in any of them. So, for me, all of European mainland literature is at the mercy of the quality of its translators, which makes me reluctant to judge. For all I know, I should be praising the translator, not the original writer. If you read my first book in Swedish, you would think I was a genius. If you read my first book in German, you would think I was a fool. So it goes. In fact, I strongly suspect that the Swedish translator of my first novel is a better writer than me, and wrote a better book. Molle Kanmert’s emails asking me questions were far funnier than mine, and the Swedish version outsold every other version. Someone sign her up for a novel…

 

3. Do you want your work to be translated? Why or why not?


Of course I do. I want readers. I want to be understood, I want to be misunderstood, I want to get into fights, I want to swim in the Dead Sea, I want to die in my swimsuit, I want to visit Siberia (but leave again), I want to butt in on your national conversation, drink your national drink, shoot and stuff your national bird, eat your national icecream, kiss your poets and pat your dogs and weep at the airport as we hug each other and exchange email addresses and our respective national varieties of flu.

 

4. Are there enough publishing outlets in Ireland for contemporary fiction? Is there a market for literary fiction in Ireland?

 

Well, we have the usual situation that arises when you share a language with a larger neighbour. A perverse, S&M relationship. You fight your oppressor & occupier for 800 years, get your freedom, then immediately ask  them for a publishing deal. Just as Bosnian writers seek Croatian publishers, Irish writers seek English publishers. Of course, English publishers seek Irish writers, so it’s a healthy, wholesome S&M relationship. 80% of Irish novels come out of London publishing houses. There’s always a slight tension in that relationship, of course, because some of your jokes and references won’t be understood by your publisher. But London publishers are very good at making sure that doesn’t become a problem, and that the integrity of the work is protected. They have to navigate the same issues with Welsh and Scottish and Indian and Australian novelists, so it’s not a big deal. There are a lot of small, very noble but very undercapitalised Irish publishers, but they have great difficulty hanging on to their writers if a UK publisher offers a decent advance. Or any advance at all.

 

We don’t really have a problem with lack of recognition, lack of outlets. The best Irish writers get recognised, usually in London first, after which the Irish literary establishment falls into line.  Ireland very, very seldom discovers its own writers first. Roddy Doyle had to take out a bank loan to publish the Commitments in Ireland. After which, he was picked up by an English publisher.

 

That has an interesting effect, though. Knowing that you are addressing sixteen UK readers for every one Irish reader, in a very mild way your book goes into translation in your head, as you write it. Most Irish writers will deny this, but I think it’s true. Of course I was born in London to emigrant Irish parents, so I feel equally at home, or not at home, in both places.

 

 

5. Given a choice, would you prefer a faithful, literal translation of your work or an interpretive re-imagining of it? Why?

 

An interpretive re-imaging, definitely. I don’t think a “faithful, literal” translation of my work – of any work - is even possible. If a translation were to be literal, it wouldn’t be faithful, and vice versa. Any decent writer is playing with nuances, rhythms, echoes, soundstuff that will evaporate in any literal translation. I like a lot of layers. Puns, resonances, double-meanings, Tipperaryisms, things my mum says at Christmas. Often the point of the sentence hasn’t anything to do with its literal meaning at all.

 

I use deliberately “wrong”, literal translations of phrases from the Irish language sometimes myself, because they sound fecking great in English. Friends of my dad would still say “I walked several strong miles”, and that is straight out of the Irish.

 

The Jude books are deliberately written in a stilted, old-fashioned, formal English, of the type spoken in Ireland a century ago. It’s the first-generation English of speakers who learnt English in school, from books, because their parents spoke Irish at home. For me this is a very rich form of English, because you can let the underlying Irish thoughts, structured in Irish grammar, burst through now and again. There is always a nice tension in the speech, as though Jude is walking on linguistic stilts, and has to be careful. He is trying to be terribly precise with a language he doesn’t really control or own.

 

Sometimes the games I play with the various versions of English are fairly explicit, as in the case of this head injury in Jude in London:

 

           “Their noble Tipperary speech reminded me of my mental catastrophe. I looked up from my book, and took the opportunity to experiment with my deformity: I spoke a Catholic thought, and it came out Church of England: I praised a fine All-Ireland semi-final performance by the Tipperary Under-21 hurlers against Kilkenny; and from my mouth came alien speech of an F.A. Cup semi-final replay at Villa Park.

           Sweet Mother of Jesus, I thought, astonished, and

           “Queen of Heaven!” I said.

           Christ on a bicycle, I thought.

           “Good Lord!”

           Holy fuck.

           “Blessed Union!”


           I gave up the attempt to accurately express myself, and returned to my book.”

 

 

I must be a real bastard for translators, because increasingly I like to back-engineer scenes so that a crucial line of narrative, thrown up by the action, is also a line of poetry by Yeats, or a line of dialogue is also a line of Joyce, or Kafka, or is made out of Radiohead song titles. They can be tricky to spot - most of my native-English readers miss most of them. And I also use the misunderstandings and gaps between American English and English English and Irish English to generate jokes and misunderstandings, and moments of unease.

 

 

A single English word sings in many voices, and I like to set off a couple of them, and make my words sing harmonies with themselves, or beat each other up. I doubt if anyone but me gets the half of it, but I think readers find pleasure in it anyway. I remember a woman on a blog quoting her favourite piece of my writing. She said she couldn’t put her finger on why she liked it so much. Well, I could. It was the end of a chapter, and I’d written it in iambic pentameter. Because it was laid out like prose, she hadn’t consciously registered the formal rhythm, the internal rhymes. But subconsciously, she got it...

 

That makes me sound too much of a word wizard – I should also say that most of my sentences are extremely straightforward attempts to get a character through a door in such a way that the reader understands it without having to read it twice, and I don’t always even succeed at that.

 

 

{EDIT: OK, I'm getting Repetitive Strain Injury from putting in links to all these bastards, enough for tonight. Hope you enjoyed it, if you got this far. I'll link a few more lads tomorrow. Your comments are very welcome.}



Twitter & Tweets: Who Can Read What (And How And Why To Use The Dot).

I started to use the mighty "." on Twitter today, and immediately got into about 50 confused conversations about it, most of which started "What's with the . thing?" Trying to tweet 50 different bitesized answers did not lessen the confusion, so I thought I'd explain here what I'm doing (or what I think I am doing).

May this post give you the strength to make the dot a good thing, the self-restraint to avoid making it a bad thing, and the wisdom to tell the difference.

See? Many of humanity's problems, incredible as it seems, predate Twitter. (Explosm sell this as a T-shirt! Site seems down, so I've linked to info on the Cyanide & Happiness guys.) 

SOME BACKGROUND ON HOW USERS DRIVE TWITTER'S EVOLUTION

A lot of people, especially new users, are not entirely sure how Twitter works, or who can read what, when and how. This is unsurprising: Because Twitter has evolved so fast, features that didn't even exist a year ago are at the heart of the Twitter conversation now. Users are constantly finding new implications of those new features, and creatively using (& misusing) them, in turn. And those new, user-invented features and workarounds that are popular and useful get turned into new, official features: When I started using Twitter only a few months ago, for example, retweets had to be done by hand, and there was no agreed syntax ("Retweet", "(RT)", "RT:", "Via" and others were all in use.) ...Twitter only installed an official button for retweeting in September this year. (We will get to the meat of the matter after you jump the shark. With its black dot for an eye.)

A lovely blue shark 

SO WHO CAN READ WHAT?

Before we talk about the mighty dot, we need to be clear on how tweets work. As things stand today (and this wasn't true last year, and may not be true next year), this is who can read what. Let's say I send a nice ordinary tweet, like "I am eating the most amazing pickled shark testicles." That tweet
will appear in the stream of everyone who follows me. It also appears in my own stream (where I can read all the incoming tweets from those I follow), and on my own page (where all my tweets are stacked up one after the other.)

But if I reply directly to someone else's tweet, like this: "@sharklover Sorry, I forgot you were a vegetarian. And married to a shark. Whoops." ...then that reply will only appear in the streams of the people who follow BOTH me (@juliangough) and her (@sharklover). Twitter don't make this very clear, and it isn't intuitively obvious, so a huge number of Twitter users assume that everyone who follows them can read all their replies. Not so. However, that last tweet is defined by Twitter as a reply simply because it STARTS with a name, @sharklover. If I hand-crafted a reply like this: "Well listen, @sharklover, obviously I wouldn't have eaten his testicles if I'd known he was your husband" ... then, because it doesn't start with a name, Twitter will treat it as a regular ordinary tweet, and all my followers can see it in their stream, whether they follow @sharklover or not.

 

WHICH IS WHERE THE DOT COMES IN...

Which is, at last, where the dot comes in. Hitting reply is handy: there's the person's name, the cursor is blinking after it, all you have to do is type the message and send. Building your tweet either side of the other person's name, however, just so your reply will be visible to all your followers, is not handy, and can sound really awkward, like a tweeted, 140-character version of stilted Victorian dialogue: "So, @moriarty, we meet again, in the shadow of the Reichenbach Falls..."

 

Of course, most replies are not of general interest and the system, by hiding them from most of your followers, works fine. ("@mum I left @dad drunk in the coal shed.") But sometimes a reply would be of interest to many, or all, of your followers (not just those who follow you and the person you are replying to). For example, I sometimes get asked interesting questions about my novels, or about my old band: I know that a good chunk of my followers are fans who would appreciate seeing my reply. And sometimes you just want to open up the conversation with a reply, and give others a chance to join in. And sometimes you want to start a big fight.

But how do you quickly and easily convert the reply into an open message? You can't just type a letter, or letters, directly in front of the name with no space, like this: a@sharklover. That stops it from being treated as a reply by Twitter, sure, but any letters touching the front of the "@" mess up the name, stop it from being searchable, prevent it from appearing in the @replies box of the person you sent it to, and mean it is no longer hyperlinked (that is, you can't click on it and go to their page). So, what, add a letter and a space? A quick abbreviated explanation? It starts to get messy, and distracting. And eat up scarce characters.

But you CAN type non-letters, such as punctuation marks, directly in front of a name, without messing it up and breaking it as a link and all that bad stuff. And the simplest, smallest, least annoying punctuation mark is the full stop. This guy, inside the quotes: "."

So if I send this: ".@sharklover I've always loved you, I've had fins surgically attached also intromittant organs, feels weird having a double penis, marry me", now everybody who follows me can read it. Which may or may not be a good thing, but it's a nice option to have.

 

A WORD OF CAUTION

The dot allows a personal conversation to be overheard by many others, so use it sparingly. Think - is this private remark really going to interest many of my other friends? If not, don't dot. Otherwise you run the risk of being the person at the bar shouting loudly at their friend, in the vain hope of impressing the whole pub. Don't beat yourself up if you overuse it at the start and annoy a few friends. It is natural to get a bit carried away at first (he said, after an entire day's experience). I certainly did. But I had calmed down by teatime, and so should you. A cup of camomile should do it.

 

WHO INVENTED IT?

I've no idea, but I'd love if you could tell me. I first noticed guys like @glinner using the dot recently, I had no idea what it was, and (too shy to ask) worked out what it meant by context. I have noticed that comedians and scriptwriters are prone to use it. (The dot is particularly useful if you are replying to a friend with a cracker of a joke and don't want it wasted.) It just seems to have spontaneously evolved, because it was needed, and may have many mothers and fathers.

 

A FINAL THOUGHT ON DMs (DIRECT MESSAGES)

Oh yeah, while we are at it: there is one other type of tweet. DMs (direct messages) can only be sent to people who are following you, and can only be read by you-the-sender, and the individual you sent it to. But bear in mind, if YOU aren't following THEM, they can't DM you back, which can lead to an embarrassingly public tweet like this: "Sure thing @juliangough I'll DM you an answer to your DM requesting the name of my drug dealer as soon as you follow me." So it's probably best to follow people BEFORE you DM (direct message) them.

 

Also bear in mind that nothing in human cultural history has grown as fast as Twitter, and that this is just a snapshot of the evolving situation in late 2009. It will all change, change utterly, and within a few months this post will seem as quaint as advice on the kind of red flag your servant should be carrying as he walks sixty yards ahead of your self-propelled mechanical vehicle.

 

THE PREHISTORY OF TWITTER

For those interested in the prehistory of Twitter, and how such arcane events as the great #fixreplies revolt of May 2009 shaped the current Twitter universe, here's a couple of links:

The Evolution of Retweeting. This article from August 2009 (only two months ago as I write!) gives a flavour of how users drive the development of Twitter, and of how tentative and confused the developers can feel in the face of such pressure from below. The retweet option they initially planned to build is nothing like the one that they eventually delivered.

The Great #fixreplies Revolt of May 2009. This battle reshaped the modern @replies. A bit like the slaves' rebellion in Spartacus, the revolt failed but left an enduring legacy, and scared the pants off the Emperor (ie this is when the chaps who set up Twitter first realized they were not in fact in total control of it).

The Invention of @replies and @mentions. Back in November 2008, when the world was young, @replies were formally adopted by Twitter. This Twitter blog post now feels like the Magna Carta.

 

Throw in comments, advice, argument below, or attack me frenziedly on Twitter itself (@juliangough). Feel free to link to, copy, or pass this onto friends if you think it's helpful. And be nice to each other out there. Oh, it's all fun and games in the Twitter playground till somebody loses an eye.

 

Meanwhile, to reward you for reading so much stuff about such a small thing, here's a real dot to play with. Focus on it. Now lean forwards, and backwards. Feel the power of the mighty dot! (This probably won't work for you, Momus, or any other visitors with one eye.)

Feel its power

Why I Love Twitter (and will for at least another month)

Photo by iJustine, via flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ijustine/

OK, after a couple of weeks playing with it, I love Twitter. I find it much more yummy than I ever found Myspace, or Facebook (which should be odd, because Twitter is very, very limited in comparison.)

 

But Twitter gives me a very pure form of that thing I liked most about Facebook (with their status updates): A sense of low-level telepathy. I have a vague idea of what a lot of my friends, and other people I like, are feeling. How their life is going. People who really like Twitter tweet far more often than they update their Facebook status, so the knowledge of how they are doing is more granular, more finegrained. With Facebook I know they're happier, or sadder, this week than last week. With Twitter, I know they're happier, or sadder, this evening than they were this morning.

 

And the blurring of the line between friend and famous person is democratic and interesting.

 

Plus, I've never seen a social/internet thingy evolve so fast. It's fascinating.

 

Does this mean Twitter will change the world/hit a billion users/be around in a year's time? Not necessarily. It's evolving fast in an ecosystem which is also evolving fast. Spam risks ruining it. And every other tech company wants to buy it/kill it/replace it. Anything could happen.  But it's the closest thing yet to the simple, non-technical, magic app that will bring the internet right into our head, so that we can talk to anyone about anything in any language, to solve any problem at any time, so that we will never be lonely again.

 

This version of Twitter is going to look primitive as fuck within a year. But you, me, it, and the world will be very different in a year. Right now, it's the place to play. (Which has distracted me terribly from my blog, sorry. I've posted something like 89 tweets in the past fortnight, and one blog post.)

 

Anyway, if you are Twittering, or thinking you might try it, call round and see me sometime.

A Twit Twitters

This pretty picture links to my new Twitter thingy. Ain't computers smart, huh?

I was vaguely wondering if my name was still available on Twitter, or was some teenaged, early-adapting Julian Gough with an iPhone, wi-fi-enabled double-entry vibrator and frightening buttock-tattoos tweeting as Julian Gough eighteen times an hour on the subjects of his motorbike and STDs, to the consternation of my aunts, bank manager, and former Christian Doctrine teacher.

 

Anyway, no, he is not. My name was still available. So, one thing led to another, and next thing I knew, I'd signed up to Twitter.

 

My, um, name, is:   http://twitter.com/juliangough

 

Or you can just click here to get to my Twitter page

 

Not sure what I do next, but there you are.

Radioactivity

I should mention a couple of things that are coming up on the radio in the UK and Ireland...

 

I'll be one of the people talking about Chekhov on RTE Radio 1, on the Arts Show, on Tuesday night.

 

And (far more exciting for me, as I am thoroughly sick of the sound of myself), BBC Radio 4 will be broadcasting The Great Hargeisa Goat Bubble as a lunchtime play on Friday,  May 15th. I haven't heard it yet (I finished the script at 3am on the day I left Berlin for the Balkans, and it was recorded in London while I've been here), but the cast are terrific, and I'm greatly looking forward to hearing what they did with it.

 

Cast and info here: http://www.comedy.org.uk/guide/radio/great_hargeisa_goat_bubble/

 

More on that next week, but I thought I'd mention it well in advance. It should be available live, streamed, worldwide, from the BBC and I'd imagine it'll be archived for some time afterwards.

How To Patronise Writers Properly

Homer's brain. Which is slightly bigger than mine. (This picture's pirated so thoroughly that I couldn't track down a credit. Anyone know who did it? One of Groening's peeps, I assume. Kudos to you, unknown worker ant, labouring anonymously for our pleasure in a cruel and hostile digiverse.)

I think a lot about the future of the book. So imagine! my! delight! when I stumbled on The Institute for the Future of the Book, a think tank who do nothing but think about the future of the book.  While lying in the bath, eating chocolate, and sipping a latte macchiato through a straw. I hope.

 

Their blog,  if:book, ponders a bunch of good stuff.

 

OK, I didn't really stumble on it. I got a Google Alert saying they'd mentioned my New York Times piece, and I clicked through. But once there, I stayed for ages, wandering around the site. I hugely enjoyed a tremendously thought-provoking interview with Helen De Witt (author of The Last Samurai, and Your Name Here). It couldn't have provoked my thoughts more if it'd poked them with a stick.

Best thing is to just quote a big chunk of it. Here she is on the idiotic and inefficient way the publishing industry, as currently set up, makes money for authors. (Do I agree with her? If I agreed with her any more, I'd be her):


"Well, the way it works is, you try to sell a very large number of physical objects, collecting a dollar or two off each one for the author – from people you never contact again.

I once knew a senior partner in a Wall Street firm who loved Susan Sontag's The Volcano Lover. He talked at length about the wonderfulness of this book, the character of the Collector, the general brilliance. He was making $1 million or so a year. Of which Andrew Wylie, Sontag's agent, had cleverly managed to garner a couple of bucks for Sontag. There was no structure in place to encourage this ardent fan to, say, sponsor Sontag's travel expenses, offer Sontag six months' writing time at his vacation home in Maine, buy Sontag a new car, who knows.

This is deeply baffling. One of the problems for a fundraiser is that it's hard to raise undedicated funds. Good fundraising copy often focuses on an individual; you excite the donor's sympathy for Precious, who walks 10km twice a day to go to school, and then the donors all want to buy books, school uniform and a bicycle for Precious. If you're not careful with the wording you could find yourself under a legal obligation to send half the take from the appeal to Precious. And you hauled in all this money and goodwill for someone donors had never heard of before, with a single page of copy. It takes five minutes to read, and you're sweating blood to draft something that will get people to spend the five minutes. Whereas.

When people read a book they typically spend a minimum of a couple of hours on it. Sometimes they read it at a single sitting; sometimes they live with it for weeks. Sometimes they forget it – but sometimes it stays in the mind for years, sometimes it saves the reader from suicide, sometimes it changes the reader's life. So it has the power to make a much stronger connection with the reader than a little read-and-toss mailshot – but the strength of this connection does not translate into extra time for the writer to write.

Writers spend a lot of time getting in each other's way. There are a few places that offer residencies – normally, disruptively, places that have a lot of other writers and artists also in residence. But there are plenty of readers like my Wall Street lawyer, people with second and third homes they never have time to visit – and even the most highpowered agents never think of encouraging those readers to give the freedom of silence to writers they admire. Agents go after big advances – which means a writer does a roadshow to buy silence somewhere down the line. It's done this way because this is the way it's done. It doesn't have to be done this way; if it were done a different way, writers would write better books in less time.

So, to revert to the role of the Internet in all this: the Internet has the power to reduce the amount of time writers have to trade for legitimacy. It has the power to change readers' relationship to writers. If a book (or a blog, or a web comic) changed your life, why not buy its author a bicycle? Or a goat? Or a bottle of wine? Why not offer its author six off-season months in your summer cottage on the Cape?

Those look to me to be likelier ways forward than for writers to pay the rent by selling PDFs online."

 

That's Helen De Witt. Much more of that interview here. Send her a bicycle, a red rose, and champagne this instant.

 

Oh wait. There's no mechanism in place to do that. Bummer.

 

I've been saying this for years. We need a global patron/artist connecting tool, and the internet can do that. Look what rich people waste money on, in its absence. Hedge funds they don't understand. Overpriced condos in the hurricane corridor. Or they give it to Bernie Madoff, and he spends half on gold taps for his dog's bathroom, and gives the rest to the rich sucker he met last month, pretending it's December's "investment profits".

Far better that some of the rich give some of their spare cash to the writers they really believe in, to write. And if the writer does come up with something that's remembered long after they're both dead, what greater glory than being remembered as the patron of a great piece of art? Harriet Shaw Weaver will be remembered long after her rich contemporaries are forgotten.

So, if anyone wants to pay my rent while I finish Jude: Level 2, mail me.

Free Momus Albums! I am very excited!

I have just discovered that Momus is handing out free Christmas presents, and I am very excited. (I hope you are excited too.) In the run-up to Christmas, at a rate of several songs a day, he is giving away his six Creation albums over on his splendid blog, Click Opera. He provides links to high quality MP3s of all the tracks, and is commenting on each song, giving a little description and history, before saying what he thinks of it now, looking back. I will return to this topic, but I thought I'd tip off all you Momus fans immediately (I am looking at you, Neil Farrell).

Songs from when, as he says,

"Everything was poetry and coffee bars, basically. And we all signed on."

 

The Poison Boyfriend is already up, and the cruel and sensual Tender Pervert went up earlier today.

I would recommend, oooh, all of Tender Pervert.

 

And for those of you pop children who weren't born when Momus first gently parted the cheeks of pop's dreaming form, and who desperately need a musical reference from the last five minutes to orient yourselves, let me point out that Amanda Palmer of the delicious Dresden Dolls is covering Momus's "I Want You, But I Don't Need You" on her current tour, EVEN AS I TYPE. In fact here she is...

And here's Momus himself, in a video from slightly later in his career, when Creation had money (thanks to Oasis), and he briefly had a promotional budget. Now go grab some songs, and be sure to say thankyou.


 

My Thoughts On The New, Steam-Powered, Horseless, Electronic Book!


If you’re interested in my thoughts on the future of the electronic book, I’m quoted in today’s Irish Times, towards the end of this piece by the mighty Conor Pope. (And how quaint “electronic book” will seem in a few years! It’ll read like “horseless carriage” does now…)


Sample quote from me:


"I can't see how you can control the distribution of words. Good writers could end up with huge readership but they will probably have to find new ways of earning a living from it, which is fine. Good writers were never likely to make much money. Yeats never made more than £200 a year from his writing until he won the Nobel Prize."

Warning! Wet Paint! Flying Spanners! Falling Pianos!


Regular visitors will notice that I'm doing some painting and decorating on the website this week. I'm also moving some of the furniture around, so you might bump into, or trip over, a few things, if you're wandering around the site. ("Yuk, I've stepped in a poem.") My apologies for any inconveniences...

Explanation: I run this website all on my lonesome ownsome, using a lovely, simple interface from Squarespace.

And Squarespace have just brought out Version 5 of their... thingy, service, interface, whatever you call it. Which has some fun new features, and has made some old stuff easier to do, thus my slightly distracted look, as I poke around in far off corners of the site, finding spiderwebs and the crust of a sandwich, remembering that plumbing job I meant to do last year... Hey look! There's those photos from Burning Man I never added comments to! Which reminds me, I must scan and upload  those paper photos I found in the attic in Galway last month...

Where was I? Oh yeah, I was going to say, if you have any suggestions, please make them. I'll be up a ladder, faffing around with the site for weeks, so join in, help me make it better.

Some questions I'm wrestling with myself are: what colour should the hypertext links be? What colour scheme in general? Should the navigation bar be on the left, or the right, of the screen? What links should be in the top (horizontal) navigation bar?

And on a more macro scale, what do you like (if anything) about this site? What else would you like to see? Or see more of? Or less of? What brilliant things are other people doing on their sites that I should nick? What crushingly stupid thing does this site do that I've never noticed? What is the meaning of life?

Be nice, be nasty, be honest, I won't mind.

Meanwhile, there's a nice mention of this blog in the Irish Times this week, halfway through an article about the noble 99, high king of icecreams. It quotes from my piece on the Lisbon Treaty, and from some of your comments.


Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam

There's an enjoyable discussion of spam poetry going on, over at the Guardian Books blog.  I just posted a contribution there, so I may as well repeat it here...

spam.jpgI'm a fan of spam. I like the way that, beset by predators, predatory itself, it evolves with furious speed. I like to have a dip into my spam box every couple of weeks to see the new trends evolving (like the recent "What a stupid face you have" / "You look so stupid in this photo" variations.)

Ben Myers is right on both points, it's a stunning resource for poets, but to make good poetry out of it you have to be a very good editor. Alive to nuance and resonance. I've been playing with spam poems for years. (Not just spam: this week, I wrote two poems I'm very pleased with, constructed entirely from the legal disclaimers on poetry websites.)

By using spam, and other internet debris, poets can essentially outsource free association. But the best comment on the perils of the method comes from W.H. Auden, in a letter to the poet Frank O'Hara, long before the internet:

“I think you (and John {Ashbery} too, for that matter) must watch what is always the great danger with any ‘surrealistic’ style, namely of confusing authentic nonlogical relations which arouse wonder with accidental ones which arouse mere surprise and in the end fatigue.”

-W. H. Auden

If your ear/nose/throat/soul (add to/delete as appropriate) are alive to authentic nonlogical relations, then spam and all the other digital junk of the internet are your friend. They can jolt you out of the deep groove of habit. The first and hardest step in surprising and delighting others is surprising and delighting yourself.

Jude: Level 1 is the Book on One in Ireland this week

book680onair2.jpgRTÉ Radio 1 (the Irish national broadcaster) will be nationally broadcasting little lumps of Jude: Level 1 all this week, from Monday to Friday. The short extracts will go out at 11.45pm each night (Irish time), and can be heard live, anywhere on earth, and probably far out into space, on the RTÉ Radio 1 stream. They are read by the brilliant Beckett actor Conor Lovett. (One of the select few actors - a band apart, a very special breed - who have appeared in both Waiting For Godot and Father Ted).

 

I would have posted this earlier and given you a bit of warning, but nobody had officially told me that it was happening, and I couldn't find any advance mention of it on the RTÉ website. Maybe it's a secret. Maybe I shouldn't even be telling you. (Or maybe I'm just not very good at navigating the RTÉ website...)

 

No, I've had another poke around the RTÉ website, and they've just updated the Book on One page (after the first episode had aired, naturally) to plug Jude. Ah, there is more rejoicing in heaven over the sinner who repents than over the goody-two-shoes who updates his website punctually.

 

And I've just noticed, Lucille Redmond in the Sunday Business Post previewed it, in their Radio Review section:

 

The Book on One this coming week sounds enticing. It’s Jude: Level 1, in which a Tipperary orphan sets off for Galway, ‘the Sodom of the West’, when the Mob burns down his orphanage. After facial surgery reconstructing him in the image of Leonardo DiCaprio (but for an erectile nose), he endures a chase through the Dublin of Ulysses. It’s to be read by Beckett interpreter Conor Lovett. 

 

A woman of great taste and discernment, Lucille Redmond.

 

Anyway, I  heard some of the first episode as it went out (the live streaming kept breaking up, I really must tinker with my internet connection... chase those storks off my chimney, hunt the voles out of the DSL box, unpeel the clinging vines from my cables), and the bits I heard sounded mighty. Sorry I couldn't warn you in advance about the first episode, but you can tune in Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday at 11.45pm Irish time for more, more, MORE of Jude's adventures across Ireland.

 

I  think he'll be walking through Tipperary, in the dark, tonight, and may well meet the mysterious Pat Sheeran, who will give him a lift on his motorbike to the Sodom of the West... I'm not sure where Jude will be tomorrow (possibly doing battle with James Bond super-villain Charlie Haughey, on Haughey's private island). On Thursday and Friday I do believe he'll be trying to preserve his innocence as he pursues former Supermacs employee, and his true love, Angela, through the Inferno of Dublin...

 

And if you like that sort of filth, you can buy the book here...

Toasted Heretic in Clogs

toasted heretic nostalgia.gif 

I've been having a great, nostalgia-saturated conversation with Rachel King's sister Naomi, over on the forum. Apparently Naomi's first ever gig, aged fifteen,  was Toasted Heretic in Clogs (the legendary pub in the legendary Galway Centre for the legendary Unemployed), in 1988.

 

That distinguished lecturer in linguistics at Trinity College Dublin,  Dr. Breffni O'Rourke, is also chatting with us on the thread. Breffni may be better known to some of you as Toasted Heretic's chiselled-featured rhythm-guitarist in those early days (and resident Sex God, till Barry Wallace, now of The Rye, joined and took over that important role). It turns out Breff has a tape of the gig. He's a fountain of knowledge, I'd totally forgotten that decade, let alone that night. Apparently the original title of the song "Charm & Arrogance" (later the title track of our second album) was "Everybody Wants To Shag Julian Gough". Who knew?

 

So if you're into the intimate details of a particularly obscure Toasted Heretic gig in Clogs pub off Dominic Street in Galway city in 1988 (a gig so obscure even I'd forgotten it), by golly you've come to the right place. Click HERE...

 

Meanwhile, as I was reading the account of the Ireland-Brazil friendly unfolding on the Guardian's minute-by-minute live report, and as I threw in the odd email pulling the Guardian journalist's Offaly leg, I read (in the 83rd minute of the live report... the match must have hit a dull patch), that I had been, em... involved with his wonderful sister a couple of decades back, in Trinity. 

 

As a result I am suffering an almost lethal overdose of nostalgia, and may need to do something terribly modern to get over it.

 

But by jingo, this is what the internet was invented for. Gathering round the global campfire, telling tales from the old days before electricity. Hurrah!

electronic campfire.jpg 

Various versions of "Galway and Los Angeles" by Toasted Heretic

dmf050710-011-avi034.jpg 

My site traffic counter tells me there's been a lot of visits to a rather obscure page on the Forum this week (the Good Lord alone knows why). The page discusses Toasted Heretic's 1991 hit single, "Galway and Los Angeles", so I thought I'd add these links for the various versions of "Galway and Los Angeles" available free on Youtube...

1.) The second version of the original video (slightly muffled audio, I think it was uploaded from an old VHS tape). There was an earlier, artier version of this video, which I prefer (one long take of my mouth singing, it gets hypnotic, and the lips, when closed, start to look like a leaf or an old sofa after a while), but I don't know where to find it. Brian Shanley shot the original, but the record company freaked out and wanted another version, so we shot some stills of photos by Aengus McMahon and cut them in to make this second version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BxIvxUvfIE


2.) Toasted Heretic playing "Galway and Los Angeles" live on the Late Late Show (RTE 1 television), 2007:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlSa21EmHkw&feature=related


3.) Toasted Heretic play "Galway and Los Angeles" live in Róisín Dubh, Galway, August 2005, on the Now In New Nostalgia Flavour tour... (Very dodgy one-camera version! This was an all-ages, alcohol-free gig, in the daytime, so that the band's children and the children of our original fans could come. Thus the kids doing the amusing hand-gestures down the front. We did a far more blood, sweat and alcohol-soaked gig in Róisín Dubh the night before, for adults only, so don't worry if this version doesn't tally with your memory of the Róisín Dubh gig you attended...):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BtXFOSw650


While I'm at it, this is our most popular video on Youtube... Toasted Heretic do "Stay Tonight" (off Charm & Arrogance), on the Den with Zig and Zag... in which I stand on Zig, and throw a lot of dollars in the air, Declan speaks fluent Guitar, and Zig and Zag provide rather lovely backing vocals...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4mWrMOm51E&feature=related

 

dmf050710-005-avi091.jpg 

"I've been warned about you lot..." - Zag

Too sick to write (just sick enough to blog)

Sick as a pig this morning.

Puked my ring. Scaldy hole.

outofsorts.jpg 

You do not want details.

 

So, as I was unfit for real writing, I hung out on the Guardian Books Blog all day. Very enjoyable. At one point I was asked "Julian, are you on SSRIs?" so I may have been a bit too sick to be posting, but feckit. Mostly I argued about people's right to email poems to their friends without written legal permission from the poet's publishers (Wendy Cope is, bizarrely, against this right. I am for it... OK, it's a bit more complicated than that, but you'll have to read it, I'm not summarizing an all-day argument.) The discussion starts with a fine article by Oliver Burkeman, well worth reading.

And I helped slag off the Guardian's decision to publish their review team's Book of the Year recommendations as a 41-minute podcast instead of a list. 

If anyone wants to read all about it, or join in, here's the discussion of Wendy Cope Forbids You To Email That Poem... Put Down The Poem... Move Away From The Poem...

And here's a link to the (slightly less intellectually stimulating) People Slagging Off The 41-Minute Book of the Year Podcast...

 

And I'm off to bed.