Contemporary books

[padraig (u.s.)]

A pretty good contemporaryish book I read recently - HHhH by Laurent Binet

a strange, kinda sui generis book - a postmodern metacommentary on what it means to write historical fiction built on the scaffolding of actual historical fiction, i.e. it's largely a novel about him writing the novel he's writing, both his motivations and the actual nuts and bolts of doing the research and making editing choices about words and sentences, the inseparability of intent and execution in writing, etc. he's quite interested in both the morality and aesthetics of authors inventing thoughts, feelings, dialogue for historical characters either for narrative purposes or to fill in historical gaps - so on occasions when he does that, he'll often then write several paragraphs questioning why he did, or how it relates to the actual history. since his subject/obsession is the assassination Reinhard Heydrich - the darkest of all the senior Nazi figures, the main direct architect of the Holocaust, possibly one of the most truly evil people to have ever lived - all those issues of the ethics and practice of historical fiction become greatly magnified. there are a couple passages honoring all the members of Czech resistance who aided Heydrich's assassins but who Binet can't include as characters for narrative/space reasons, for example.

anyway, a strange book, but one I'm pretty sure will stick with me. it is an amazing story - probably the ne plus ultra of WWII Resistance stories.

he also briefly and disparagingly mentions another piece of recent Holocaust fiction - Jonathan Littel's The Kindly Ones - that I haven't read. Curious if anyone has?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

also if anyone has read The Sympathizer? that's definitely on my list, haven't gotten to yet

 

[jenks]

A pretty good contemporaryish book I read recently - HHhH by Laurent Binet

a strange, kinda sui generis book - a postmodern metacommentary on what it means to write historical fiction built on the scaffolding of actual historical fiction, i.e. it's largely a novel about him writing the novel he's writing, both his motivations and the actual nuts and bolts of doing the research and making editing choices about words and sentences, the inseparability of intent and execution in writing, etc. he's quite interested in both the morality and aesthetics of authors inventing thoughts, feelings, dialogue for historical characters either for narrative purposes or to fill in historical gaps - so on occasions when he does that, he'll often then write several paragraphs questioning why he did, or how it relates to the actual history. since his subject/obsession is the assassination Reinhard Heydrich - the darkest of all the senior Nazi figures, the main direct architect of the Holocaust, possibly one of the most truly evil people to have ever lived - all those issues of the ethics and practice of historical fiction become greatly magnified. there are a couple passages honoring all the members of Czech resistance who aided Heydrich's assassins but who Binet can't include as characters for narrative/space reasons, for example.

anyway, a strange book, but one I'm pretty sure will stick with me. it is an amazing story - probably the ne plus ultra of WWII Resistance stories.

he also briefly and disparagingly mentions another piece of recent Holocaust fiction - Jonathan Littel's The Kindly Ones - that I haven't read. Curious if anyone has?

I liked that book a lot.
Another guy who falls into that category is Éric Vuillard both the Order of the Day and The War of the Poor start with real events and then build into something very powerful. Both are really short, they are risk taking works but demonstrate a serious writer at work.
Probably the most obvious precursor is Sebald but I’d also suggest Flights by Olga Tokarczuk as something worth digging into.

 

[droid]

A pretty good contemporaryish book I read recently - HHhH by Laurent Binet

a strange, kinda sui generis book - a postmodern metacommentary on what it means to write historical fiction built on the scaffolding of actual historical fiction, i.e. it's largely a novel about him writing the novel he's writing, both his motivations and the actual nuts and bolts of doing the research and making editing choices about words and sentences, the inseparability of intent and execution in writing, etc. he's quite interested in both the morality and aesthetics of authors inventing thoughts, feelings, dialogue for historical characters either for narrative purposes or to fill in historical gaps - so on occasions when he does that, he'll often then write several paragraphs questioning why he did, or how it relates to the actual history. since his subject/obsession is the assassination Reinhard Heydrich - the darkest of all the senior Nazi figures, the main direct architect of the Holocaust, possibly one of the most truly evil people to have ever lived - all those issues of the ethics and practice of historical fiction become greatly magnified. there are a couple passages honoring all the members of Czech resistance who aided Heydrich's assassins but who Binet can't include as characters for narrative/space reasons, for example.

anyway, a strange book, but one I'm pretty sure will stick with me. it is an amazing story - probably the ne plus ultra of WWII Resistance stories.

he also briefly and disparagingly mentions another piece of recent Holocaust fiction - Jonathan Littel's The Kindly Ones - that I haven't read. Curious if anyone has?

The kindly ones is actually pretty amazing. A highly ambitious, sprawling, surrealistic, Eco-esque Nazi Zelig narrative. Messy and a bit all over the place, but the real deal.

Binet's 7th function of language is great, a kind of slapstick whodunnit tour of post-modern philosophy and European radical politics.

 

[woops]

The kindly ones is a title also used by Anthony Powell. Evidently the Greeks were so afraid of the Furies they referred to them as such so as not to offend them

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

ah right I didn't know Binet was following in something of a European WWII metahistorical fiction tradition

@droid 7th Function of Language was actually recommended to me recently independently of having read HHhH

sounds like it's kind of in the Umberto Eco, Wu Ming, etc realm? tho French rather than Italian

was planning to give The Kindly Ones hard pass based on what I'd read about it, but maybe I'll at least try it out

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

The kindly ones is a title also used by Anthony Powell. Evidently the Greeks were so afraid of the Furies they referred to them as such so as not to offend them

not naming cthonic deities so as to avoid invoking them is a common precaution across different cultures, I believe

i.e. the innumerable euphemisms for the Devil

 

[woops]

not naming cthonic deities so as to avoid invoking them is a common precaution across different cultures, I believe

i.e. the innumerable euphemisms for the Devil

The prince of the powers of the air

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

The prince of the powers of the air

that's maybe the quintessential example

the morning star is another good one (tho that term is also used for Jesus iirc)

 

[woops]

that's maybe the quintessential example

the morning star is another good one (tho that term is also used for Jesus iirc)

Doesn't Lucifer mean angel of light or something similar

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Doesn't Lucifer mean angel of light or something similar

bearer of light, I believe

obvious Promethean overtones

or any deity who steals something - i.e. challenges the order in heaven - and is punished for it, or makes a self-sacrifice

i.e. Odin sacrificing his eye (outer sight, physical self) to gain wisdom (inner sight, spiritual self) from Mimir's Well

 

[version]

A pretty good contemporaryish book I read recently - HHhH by Laurent Binet

a strange, kinda sui generis book - a postmodern metacommentary on what it means to write historical fiction built on the scaffolding of actual historical fiction, i.e. it's largely a novel about him writing the novel he's writing, both his motivations and the actual nuts and bolts of doing the research and making editing choices about words and sentences, the inseparability of intent and execution in writing, etc. he's quite interested in both the morality and aesthetics of authors inventing thoughts, feelings, dialogue for historical characters either for narrative purposes or to fill in historical gaps - so on occasions when he does that, he'll often then write several paragraphs questioning why he did, or how it relates to the actual history. since his subject/obsession is the assassination Reinhard Heydrich - the darkest of all the senior Nazi figures, the main direct architect of the Holocaust, possibly one of the most truly evil people to have ever lived - all those issues of the ethics and practice of historical fiction become greatly magnified. there are a couple passages honoring all the members of Czech resistance who aided Heydrich's assassins but who Binet can't include as characters for narrative/space reasons, for example.

anyway, a strange book, but one I'm pretty sure will stick with me. it is an amazing story - probably the ne plus ultra of WWII Resistance stories.

The bit that really sold me on HHhH was when he described an execution and I thought "Nah. He must have made this up. It's too theatrical, too cinematic," then the very next page had him detailing how a friend read his manuscript, had the same thought and he'd been frustrated because he hadn't made it up at all. That's the point at which I realised he knew exactly what he was doing and was in complete control.

 

[Corpsey]

I'm reading this hhhh

It very strongly reminds me of Knausgaard.

The way he professes his disillusion/disgust with literary falsifications of life and flaunts his lack of knowledge in certain areas etc.

It's also very easy to read because like Knausgaard (at least in translation) there's seemingly a pointed refusal on his part to indulge in stylised description etc.

It's a page turner for me cos I am one of those people who could read just about anything about the Nazis/evil people in general.

 

[luka]

terrible thread

 

[Corpsey]

Got a little ways into hhhh last night – the meta stuff is sort of interesting but the simple facts (i know i know there are none thats the point hes making sort of) of what happened are horribly transfixing enough

Not even 100 pages in and i'm already wondering if i should be reading it, it's depressing enough already and the holocaust hasn't yet happened

Good reading something so passionately contemptuous towards Chamberlain et al, selling Czechoslovkia out (churchill's “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour. You will have war.') And towards hamster faced Himmler, the raving, carpet-chewing Fuhrer et al.

According to Binet, when Germans where found to have slept with Jewish women the man would be thrown out of the party, handed to the courts, but the Jewish women weren't prosecuted – and this on Hitler's orders. And Hitler's minions often discreetly disobeyed this order, ensuring the women were sent to concentration camps. This isn't suggesting Hitler was lenient but that the minions who later claimed they were always following orders would sometimes/often disobey orders so as to be MORE cruel.

 

[catalog]

I was thinking of reading knaussgarx after reading this very funny Jameson piece on him in the lrb

Fredric Jameson · Itemised

Q. Does anything happen in Knausgaard’s books? A. Yes, but not where you think...

www.lrb.co.uk

The only book I've read recently that might fit into this thread is jenn ashworth's "notes made whilst falling" bit I can't actually think of anyone who would really like it, apart from the voracious readers. Certainly it won't be up @Corpsey s street.

It could be up @woops street, cos it has a bit of an Oulipo thing going on in one of the chapters.

 

[luka]

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I'm reading this hhhh

It very strongly reminds me of Knausgaard.

The way he professes his disillusion/disgust with literary falsifications of life and flaunts his lack of knowledge in certain areas etc.
he
It's also very easy to read because like Knausgaard (at least in translation) there's seemingly a pointed refusal on his part to indulge in stylised description etc.

I had mixed feelings about this in HHhH. I did find that refusal of stylization interesting, but mainly as a starting off point for inquiry into the ethics and practice of stylizing real people and events in historical literature, especially in the way that it highlights the way in which historians are also forced to artificially impose narratives onto history - any historian has to make similar editorial choices, about what facts to report or not, how to report them, what significance to impart to them, to choose where to begin and where to end.

I find this kind of thing vastly less interesting, and often insufferable, in Knausgaard-style autofiction, bc I simply don't find compelling, or care much about, the minutiae of authors' personal lives. and it was sometimes irritating in HHhH - first, the repeated forays into his personal life eventually become tedious and also, worse, you'd get these incongruities where he'll precisely describe the horror of the Einsatzgruppen and relate it to the Nazi drive for efficiency in mass murder, and then the next short chapter will about how Binet has a head cold that's been killing him, or him and his girlfriend have been fighting, or something.

I assume trivializing anything about the Holocaust was the opposite of his attention, but it can't help coming across like that sometimes. tbf, he is always quite clear about in no way measuring up to other people's suffering, or the heroism of the assassins, but it couldn't help detracting from the book's strength, I thought. and there are also eventual seriously diminishing returns on proclaiming your lack of knowledge - or like, there's a line between honesty of what you don't know and bragging/flaunting of ignorance which I felt he sometimes wound up on the wrong side of.

tbc do I think on the whole there's a lot more good than bad

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

the stuff about minions sometimes outstripping Hitler in cruelty gets into the Holocaust historiography functionalist vs. intentionalist debate

which Binet touches on iirc? tho briefly

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

is McCarthy contemporary? I guess how it depends how far back "contemporary" extends (i.e. the artificiality of dividing events into temporal periods)

just looked him up and I see he's publishing 2 novels this year, his first since 2006, so I guess he's a contemporary writer

I guess you'd say just his post-2000 work? I did like both No Country For Old Men and to a lesser extent The Road

tho neither is a patch on Blood Meridian