A Licence to (Pub) Bore: Inverting the Pyramid by Jonathan Wilson.

It is a bit of a cliche that repressed laconic Scottish men can only communicate mano a mano when discussing football.  The awkward silence can be ended with an endless discussion of the versatility of full backs or the necessity of playing two strikers when at home and so on  and so on forever.

Recently I would argue though that in Scottish football the debacle and implosion at Rangers, the continued downward spiral of the national team and endless debates on restructuring means that these have replaced discussions on tactics.  They  have fallen by the wayside or  rather put on the shelf and only dusted off occasionally maybe for Celtic's European matches or if eyes come across a Premiership game or the Champions League.  Indeed if you look at Strachan's interview and thousand yard stare post Scotland-Serbia tactical formations were probably the last thing on his or any other Scot's mind.

But this is as Jonathan Wilson's absolutely excellent book demonstrates is a very bad thing in modern football.  Ironically it was in the early years of association football that Scots led the way in developing any form of tactics when playing the game.  English Football slowly adapted to this but was always suspicious.  Indeed one of the reasons of lack of relative success in English football, he argues, is its inability to take on tactical and strategic innovation.

In giving an outline of the development of tactics in football Wilson essentially covers every major development in Wold Football in the last 150 years.  The title comes from the fact that when football began in the late 19th Century the emphasis was on total attack with 5 forwards  and 2 defenders - admiration of dribbling skills and standing off players was the norm.  A bit similar to rugby union - which was of course a posh offspring of football.

The history of football really though in Wilson's view can be looked at through the prism of this being turned on its head.  Indeed it ends (it was written in 2008) with speculation of playing with no clear attackers or strikers - the false 9 position. The ultimate inversion.  And yet the best teams seem to be adapting this system it  was really the formation that Spain used to win  the 2012 European Championship and Barcelona use every week.  It is pretty high risk though - Spain stuttered through the Euros drawing with Italy and Portugal until it all clicked in the final when they met Italy again and dismantled them 4 -0.  When off song Barcelona have lost to Celtic, Real Madrid and AC Milan playing that system.  Man United experimented with it a few years ago with Rooney, Ronaldo, Tevez, Giggs all playing in midfield really but now have reverted to a heavy reliance on one centre forward (R Van Persie).  Big Phil Scolari back as Brazil manager has also reintroduced a traditional striker Fred in his plans to win the World Cup.  And of course er Craig Levine tried it with Scotland away to the Czech Republic, we lost one nil.

See I have started again  most of those points aren't in the book - they happened after it was published. But that is part of the magic of the work it makes you look at football in a different way and go on and on about it. It's like a manual but readable and quite funny in places.  So through all the major events in football: the growth of the Hungary team in the 1940s and 50s, the Brazil team of the 1970 World Cup victory, the catenaccio system of Inter (defeated by Stein's Celtic), the England 1966 victory, total football of 70s Holland, the Saachi machine at Milan they are explained with the incremental changes of formations.  

It is not for everyone this book - who would guess that a discussion of the impact of the change to the offside rule in 1920s could not be universally enjoyed.  It has a lot of tables and charts  in it (!)  and the prose is pretty chunky:  "Aside from the negativity to which it leant itself, the major effect of the prevailing conception of the W-M was to shape the preferred mode of the centre-forward"... As I said not for everyone.

But as well as giving you a new way of looking at football there is loads here I didn't know about.  The significance of Austrian Football in the early days, the innovations of Soviet Football under Maslov and Lobanovskyi,  the fact that English Football through the  FA institutionalised their approach to football tactics (basically a disdain for the passing game) : incidentally explains the appointment of Erikson and Hodgson both of whom used similar methods in Scandinavian football for years.

Wilson is now my favourite football writer - not least because he can make me an even greater pub bore, if anyone was listening to me which they probably aren't... It allows me to nod sagely when Michael Owen announced his retirement - Wilson explains why Owen and his type of player have no future at the top end of football anymore.

I have a bit of a sad addiction to Talksport which endlessly dissects English football from a position of defiant lack of knowledge.  If one more pundit says "It doesn't matter what the boss says once the players step over the white line it's up to them."  I can throw this book at the radio.  Even when a Spanish manager who can't speak a word of English can come into Southampton and turn their results around with instilling a tactical discipline no lessons are learned.

A great book and luckily (from a Scottish perspective) one which the upper echelons of English football will always be dismissive of if they read it at all.

Sad Reflections on life and politics: Iain Banks' Interview with the Scottish Socialist Voice from November 2002.

The desperate news that ground-breaking Scottish writer and all round excellent guy Iain Banks has only a few months to live inevitably leads to some reflection on mortality and time.  I reflected that I had been a fan of Iain Banks since I was a 15 year old at high school (and banned from writing a book review of the Wasp Factory!) when he was a very new writer.  In a sense I grew up with his writing (sci-fi and mainstream) an integrated thread of my own developments up and down in my life.  Banks is an incredibly prolific writer so since the 80s has more or less produced a book a year or 18 months or so.

Another quiet memory was an interview I did with him for the Scottish Socialist Voice which I managed to dig up from computer -  I can't find it online although I do have a hard copy.  It was in 2002 only a decade ago but politically for the Scottish Left it is a geological age.  The optimism of the (relatively) new SSP and the Scottish Parliament is here as is the growing movement against war criminal Blair which would result in the massive anti-war demonstrations a couple of months later.  Banks' latest book at the time was Dead Air - a direct response to the 11th September bombings.

Reflections on life led to me thinking about how sad the political position we are in now in when you read this.  In many ways the period of this interview was the time when the SSP was at its strongest attracting the support of all sections of Scottish society including the cultural wing, involved in the anti-war movement and industrial action (the firefighters were beginning a serious campaign of industrial action, left unity however precarious (the SWP were involved after all) seemed a reality not blind wishful thinking.  Again a few months later the SSP gained 128,000 votes and 6 MSPs.

Now that seems as remote as one of the colourful planets that Iain (M) Banks writes about.  The Scottish Left is generally a wasteground, the SSP disintegrated in the aftermath of 2 court cases  and things have been thrown back many years to way before 2002.  Personally I gave up my membership in 2011 after the Parly elections as the SSP struggled to cope with the post-court case (2010 model) terrain.  

As Banks says here: " the point is not - and never - to give up hope". There are some good signs : the Radical Independence Convention, the anti-bedroom tax demos.  But things are so much more complicated and patchy because there is no coherent left force in Scotland.  For a time there was though and Iain Banks was part of it.  Hopefully as he faces his next few months that will be a positive thought for him.  

He also turned me on to an Orchestra Baobab album which is still one of my favourites!

Iain Banks is one of Scotland’s most successful fiction writers.  Dead Air, published a few months ago is his twelfth novel.  He has also internationally popular with his science fiction work where he has written  nine novels and created his own utopian society: the Culture. He is also, perhaps, the most famous subscriber to the Scottish Socialist Voice!  He gave his views on books, music, the world and politics to Nick McKerrell.

Dead Air seems to have caused a bit of a controversy touching as it does on  the events around September 11.  Did this surprise you?

Not really. Actually I was hoping it would stir things up a bit. A bit more, even (instead of dealing with the issues the book tried to raise, people seemed generally fixated on the fact the first draft was "written" in six weeks - it's true it was typed out in six weeks, however I'd mostly written the book in my head over the three or so months previously).

A lot of your recent mainstream novels seem to deal with a lot of topical issues is this your preferred setting?

I like the freedom of being able to write from a Science Fictional point of view, where you can deal with issues on any scale at all, but I do enjoy writing about the here and now too, because, well, that's where we all live, while still keeping the option of veering off into fantasy or magical realism or whatever, should the notion take me.

The main protagonist in Dead Air is a shock left-wing DJ  who lets rip at various points with his comments on America, the world and everything.   Did you use this to vent your spleen on the  way the world is going?

Definitely. Usually I allow myself just one obvious rant per book, but with this one I decided to make the rants more centre stage. I think since Dubya's non-election and the rightwards slide of New Labour (tm) there seems to be more to rant about.

On that theme  how do you think the world is going?

Badly, just now. The Right has been in the ascendancy since the early Eighties and has done its damnedest to persuade everybody that its way is the only way, but some of the chickens are starting to come home to roost now (the word "Enron" springs to mind, for some reason) and the point is not - and never - to give up hope. Capitalism has had it all its own way since about 1990 and the world is a demonstrably less fair, just and equitable place; alternative ways of running society need to be explored and I think more and more people are open to that idea.

How do you feel about the current warmongering of Bush and Blair?

I've never voted for New Labour and I don't consider myself a subject of the Crown, but I can't help feeling ashamed of what Blair is doing in my - our - name. What is being touted here is a war of naked imperialist aggression, an act of civilisational thuggery.

How do you think the Scottish Parliament has done in the last few years?

Not bad, so far. Not brilliant, certainly, but there have been some progressive measures (student fees, nursing care funding). The biggest scandal is the cost of the new Parliament building; were the planners/accountants from a military background? I thought only weapons systems cost eight times more than originally budgeted for.

What about the SSP?

Well, you get my vote, and I buy the paper... But stop fishing for compliments.

Would you call yourself a socialist?

I do if I bump into right-wing Americans (I don't know, there's just something about the sight of a wildly pulsing vein on the suddenly scarlet brow of a Republican-voting big-name SF author). But I'm rich*, so I'm not sure I'm really allowed to... (*This is rich in the compared-to-most-people sense, not in the Bill Gates or even Sir Paul McCartney sense.)

The Culture –Banks’s utopian universe– could be seen as a vision of a socialist society?

Yes, the Culture, which appears in most of the SF books, is socialist/communist/whateverist. There's no money, private property is synonymous with sentimental value, nothing and nobody is exploited and the opportunities for fun are pretty much unrestricted, so I like to think of it as a society that anybody could be happy in. Well, maybe not people of a determinedly miserablist nature, but they get to use really good, profoundly saturative VR, so even they're happy (relative term) too. Gee, all we need is too-cheap-to-ticket space travel and unlimited clean energy! What's stopping us?

Does it bother you that many people only read your fiction and don’t look at the sci-fi?

 Deeply. But, heck, it isn't compulsory.

Will your next book be science fiction?

 Yup. Though that's about all that even I know. It'll probably end up being a Culture story again because I just love writing about it and there's still a lot of stuff about the Culture I'd like to write about, however if I can think of a really spiffing non-Culture idea between now and this time next year when I have to start writing the blighter, I'll go with that instead (hint: I most likely won't).

How do you rate other Scottish writers?

Far too good. We're just a wee daft country; how DARE there be so many writers what are better than me. It's a disgrace. I may sue.

I know you’re a bit of a music fan.  What are you listening to at the moment?

 Red Hot Chilli Peppers: "By The Way". Or maybe Craig Armstrong: "As If To Nothing". 

The Circular Beginning of a Cycle: Rabbit, Run - John Updike

It's that time of the year again.  When the hibernation season is going on I am generally attracted to  20th Century American novels exposing the cracked reality of life inside the powerhouse of world capitalism.  This January I have begun the John Updike group of four novels examining the life of Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom - one for each of the last decades of the last century.  I have never read any Updike but heard a lot about him when he died in 2009 and always remember his appearance on the Simpsons as Krusty's biographer- which Jonathan Franzen has also been on.

Rabbit is living in the past.   Although he lives in an apartment  with his wife and son,  a suburbof the "fifth largest city" in Pennslyvania (both places creations of Updike).  He has a job - selling the Magipeeler kitchen appliance.  This is the low -rent end of Cheever/Mad Men America - though this is set at the cusp of the 50s: 1959.  A long way from down -town Manhattan, Grand Central Station and pre-dinner cocktails, though alcohol does play a part.  He is very tall and moderately good looking. The birth of mass consumerism is here - televisions, second-hand cars, kitchen "machines that were modern five years ago" but Rabbit is a bit player in it.   And he wants to escape.

Partially that is to his past.  He was a basketball star at high school - feted by all.  But that was 10 years ago.  Rabbit is in his mid twenties - in current setting he would probably be about ten years older - I noticed a similar phenonmeon in Cheever's short fiction.  The novel starts with him jumping into a street ball game with sceptical teenagers.

So far so American.  Due to the domination of Hollywood and to a lesser extent T.V.  we are used to tales of American High School and sports stars and the faded aftermath.  It's as much an alien culture to us in Scotland as the Russian Peasants of Turgenev but its cliches and images seem to be stuck in our DNA like the annoying recurrence of a Grease Megamix.

What sets this novel apart though and raises it into a realm of universal literature, I think, is what happen next.  That is Rabbit Runs - his unhappy marriage to his pregnant Janice is put in sharp relief when he comes home after the ball game and she is drunk watching the Mickey Mouse Club on TV.  He goes out for cigarettes for her and never goes back....

Except he does in a way.  His escape is complex and incomplete.  At first he seeks to drive away but in comical fashion and written with detailed geographical precision he seems to be damned to driving round in circles in the North-Eastern states of America despite a desire to go the Gulf of Mexico.  He seems to be held like a magnet and can't escape the diners and gas-stations.  He then drives back to the suburb - via his old basket ball coach he ends up living with Ruth.  She is a faded beauty who is outwith the traditional 50s America family structure.  But this is pre-60s sexual "revolution" and contraception  so there are hints of prostitution about her life and life style.  She is an interesting character but not as fully developed , I didnt think as the others.

Although living with another woman it is only on the other side of the mountain which is set bang in the middle of the suburb and gives it its name Mount Judge.   Again almost inevitably he does return to his wife and child  (when Janice gives birth) but he runs again then something tragic (and pretty shocking in the narrative of the novel) occurs and he returns and then runs again... or does he.

Though apparently the later Rabbit novels are more explicit with a running commentary of the America of the times this is a little more subtle.  All the trappings of consumerism which fail to alleviate almost any of the characters' sadness and Rabbit's feelings of failure are just there.  Like the early surf-rock music he listens to on his car radio when he tries to flee and the mention of the escape (significant I think) of the Dalai Lama from the Chinese Tibetan invasion of 1959 - the only contemporary event that is mentioned.  This says a lot about America but it is more centred on the alienation and lack of direction that Harry Rabbit feels.

He is fairly shallow though particularly when it comes to women.  The novel is pretty frank in its sexual language which was out in the same sort of era as Lady Chatterly's Lover.  Rabbit sees sex as a power weapon over the women in his life.  There are two particularly uncomfortable scenes - one with Ruth where he demands oral sex and one when he returns to Janice - which precipitates the tragedy in some ways.  They emphasise his selfishness and his personal obsession.

The novel is largely but not wholly written from Rabbit's perspective but not in the first person.  However there are a number of times when Updike shifts to a different character's perspective.  There is an excellent part dealing with Eccles, the minister for Rabbit's church  (a really well drawn character)- another part of suburbia, visiting Harry and Janice''s parents trying to reconcile the couple.  He, chronically thirsty throughout   is obviously struggling with his own faith - he justifies his job though as a social one trying to solve other people's problems: which causes him to be condemned by his wife (another woman Rabbit tries to make the moves on) and the Lutheran  hard line Protestant minister who says his only role is to be an "examplar of faith" not a "cop without hand-cuffs".

Powerfully, though, and in I think the best part of the novel, in the pre-tragedy scene he focuses on Janice as she descends into drunkenness as she thinks Rabbit has run again and causes the horrible event. It is a brilliantly written well measured scene and changes the tone of the last third of the novel significantly.  It is almost like a separate short story contained within a larger work.

Though this has ended up as part of a four novel set looking at the development of Harry Rabbit I am not sure it began like that because there is a lot here - a study of what being a man is, sex, America, religion, death.  The novel ends with the sentence.  Runs.  Literally Rabbit is pursued (not for long) by Eccles who tried hard to reconcile him to his life.   What will or can happen next?

A great book.  I intend to read the novels at different points throughout the year - I hope they are not like diminishing movie sequels but take up the themes that are explored here.

We are the Nihilists - Ivan Turgenev: Fathers and Sons.

Being both the things in the title of this 19th Century Russian Novel and as I am currently meandering through the works of old Fyodor Dost I thought I would make a pitstop at one of his contemporaries (and eventual enemies) Turgenev and this influential work.

I didn't really know what to expect of it but the title does give a clue.  Forget about the Andrew Marr sanctioned view of  Sunday Night TV 20th century history of the 1950s being the era of the "birth" of the teenager this 1862 work blows up the generational gap that was present in Tsarist Russia.  It also creates the role model for James Dean and er John Travolta in Grease's rebellious angry young man in Bazarov (probably).

Much is made that Turgenev popularised (or some would argue created) the term nihilist to describe Bazarov as someone who believes in nothing - thank you Big Lebowski!  But it is actually slightly inaccurate - the young medical student Bazarov does have beliefs essentially in the ultimate authority of rationalism.  That is to say he distrusts and rejects all elements of mysticism or romanticism whether in the form of religion (very controversial at the time) or poetry and art (ironically this would probably be more controversial today) and distills everything down to scientific experiment and reason.  In a sense Bazarov is the post French Revolution age of reason personified.

Leaving that aside because it would sound like Bazarov is purely allegorical a cypher to study these ideas and that would be very inaccurate.  He is a powerhouse of a character though who really dominates the work and the narrative arc, such as it is, revolves around him although the other "son" in the work provides the immediate focus - his friend Arkady.

What is quite refreshing in the book is that it is not really plot driven - a few incidents occur and Bazarov dies in the end in an understated way - but for a nineteenth century novel it is unusal in that it is really an exploration of character and theory.  I guess many radical Russians at that time used fiction as a method of expressing their political views as other ways were blocked by the Tsarist police state, even Dostoevsky although this altered into more spiritual and philosophical views.  Ivan T was definitely one of these - he dedicates his work to the Utopian Socialist radical literary critic - Belinsky.

The novel begins with Arkady returning home to see his widowed father a fairly small scale but wealthy landlord with Bazarov in tow.  In contrast Bazarov is not of the landed gentry - a critical distinction in feudal Russia - but his father is a doctor for the military.  Also thrown into the mix is Arkady's uncle Pavel a retired soldier who had had an obsession with a Princess which lead him to travel around 1800s Europe before returning home.

The timing of the work is also contemporary thus the emancipation of the serfs by Tsar Alexander II had just occured though the details of it all had yet to be worked out.  Thus we are in the midst of a transitional period - a fertile time for art.  What is significant that Arkady's father Nikolai (great name!) and Pavel are not really representatives of the worst elements of feudal society but the liberal wing of established society.  They believe in the emancipation, are influenced by European Romanticism.  Nikolai eventually becomes an official  arbitrator designed to regulate relations between the emancipated peasants and the landowners.  He also has a child with a peasant and eventually (though significantly not immediately) marries her.

But it is this liberalism that Bazarov and for a period Arkady most despises  - "we have decided not to do anything about anything" Bazarov proclaims at one point causing Pavel to shake with anger.  They want to smash things down and subject every institution in Russia to "complete and merciless condemnation".

Thus the older generation simplistically believe in limited reform which does not really challenge the status quo - seen in Nikolai's initial refusal to recognise his loving relationship with the peasant Fenechka - whereas the younger generation want to overthrow everything.

Bazarov has been labelled as the "first" Bolshevik and in many ways that is true.  Although the group were not around until 40 years later and even the birth of the general Marxist movement in Russia was in its extremely formative stage (Trivia fact: Turgenev had the same birth and death years as Marx!) what it shows is the tension between those tied to the power of the feudal state and working to maintain it even using liberal language and those who want to go much further.

It is that tension that lead Trotsky to come up with the concept of permanent revolution - essentially not trusting liberal elements of the Russian feudal state to introduce meaningful capitalist reform as was done in Western Europe in Holland and France and to some extent England.  And for Lenin - the guy who more than anyone formed the Bolsheviks - to argue when revolution did hit Russia to argue for "uninterrupted" revolution using the slogan All Power to the Soviets.  This exposed the closeness of even the Menshevik wing of the Socialist Movement in Russia to the state.

Through the arguments of this 1862 novel all of these tensions are there (quite incredibly).  In fact I saw an Unreported World on Channel 4 last week about Aung  San Suu Kyi trying to disarm a mass community movement against Chinese investment in Burmese capitalism using her liberal authority (well earned with her house arrest) and was reminded of that.

What is missing is that Bazarov has no vision of another society - in fact he rejects that which removes it from a traditional Marxist view - which remember was just being created at this time: Marx was  5 years away from writing Capital.  I also found significant Bazarov's attitude to the peasantry - although not part of the ruling order by not owning land he is elevated as is his father by their education - he is noted for being comfortable mixing with all classes.  But he has no romantic view of this group in fact he openly despises and derides their superstition and mystical nonsense.  This is in stark contrast to the Back to the Land attitude of the early Narodnik radicals in Russia who tended to romanticise the lifestyle of the peasants. Or indeed the "Mother Russia" idea of Dostoevsky of celebrating the unique-ness of Russian culture.  This again puts Bazarov back in the Bolshevik type.

In my view these political disputes and tensions are central to the work and give it an energy and modernist feel which is quite surprising but it is not the only thing within it.   We are introduced to Bazarov's parents  - poorer than Arkady's but still influenced by Russian society particularly the religion - Bazarov has dinner and plays cards with the local priest.  Both Arkady and Bazarov fall in love.  Arkady's love seems to bring him back to his father though rejecting the sharp rationalism of Bazarov.

Bazarov's putative relationship with the widow Anna Sergeevna is interesting as when he first views her he sees her as an object of lust - a possible physical conquest.  As he gets to know her though (as Arkady gets to know and fall in love with her younger sister) he struggles with his feelings of romantic love which he as a nihilist has rejected. His declaration of this is quite disastrous as he himself is not sure where these feelings have come from and are predictably rebuffed by Anna.  Significantly she marries at the end though not for romantic love but political support for a reforming politician and her attraction for Bazarov is largely due to his intellect and different viewpoint.

This part of the work shows Turgenev challenging Bazarov to an extent - it shows he did not fully buy into the philosophy of the "sons" - that maybe the Fathers did have some good elements.  This is also shown in Bazarov's death which he details in a  matter of fact way as he is infected when treating someone with Typhus and knows he is going to die - which he does at his parents' home.

There are also some good set pieces in the novel - a ridiculous duel scene between Bazarov and Pavel - how more symbolic a generational clash could you get; a few encounters with fairly strange fellow travellers of Bazarov. The translator of this Oxford World's Classics edition also does a good job with understated and funny phrasing where appropriate.  The edition of the work also has interesting background work - which shows how Turgenev had driven a background sketch of each character and a rudimentary plot line.  A method much utilised since - Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant did it in the Office for example.

The work was controversial with Dostoevsky and others seeing Turgenev's book as an attack on them and the liberal intelligentsia in Russia satisfied with the Emancipation Reforms.  The writers fell out soon after this. But I have to say FD must have seen the power of this novel - the style of writing and the economy of plot.  Having now read a lot of FD's early works this is much stronger than those with the exception of the semi-surreal piece the Double and parts of the Humiliated and Insulted.  Perhaps FD also saw this book as a challenge for him to lift his game.

For me this book symbolises the power of fiction which can cause heated discussion 150 years on in a way other things simply can't.  Or can cause me to garble on about it for 2 hours during my Christmas holiday - not sure if that is good or bad.  Impressive anyway, Ivan.

Humiliated and Insulted: Dostoevsky back in the saddle?

It's taken me quite a while to complete this - Dostoevsky's first lengthy novel which foreshadowed a period where he produced his recognised great pieces.   Mainly this has been down to  external factors - an increasing workload due to the grinding cuts in the public sector and the timing of the current semester but it does also reflect the prose itself which I think is a bit stop -start and difficult to get into the flow of.

Like many 19th Century novels this was published in instalments through a journal.  This also gives the text a strange rhythm - something I remember noticing in Hardy - in that it builds up to climaxes in strange places in the overall structure of the work.   Of course in the novel (or I guess in serial terms the box set!) these can be a problem if the prose around it is weak as it is unusual and stands out - in part this work does suffer from it  I think.  Even though this is a strong recent English translation.

The novel is back in Dostoevsky's bleak urban environment of St. Petersburg after his dalliance with the rural     tensions of hierarchichal families in his previous two short works.   The central pivot of the piece is Vanya a writer who gets entangled in two plots - the life of an empoverished epileptic child Nelly who he discovers when he moves into her Grandfather's grotty garret flat and a fairly flimsy love triangle between him, his childhood love Natasha and her obsessive love the foppish, handsome, rich  and nice but dim Alexei.   The link between the two, apart from  Vanya, is the villainous Prince Valkovsky: the father of Alexei who is attempting to ruin Natasha's father in a law suit and is somehow indirectly involved in Nelly's dead family

In true 19th century style the two plots entwine with a series of (fairly unsurprising) revelations but in truth the narrative is not really driven by the plot. FD's heart doesn't really seem to be in that - even when he introduces a private detective - an old friend of Vanya - to drive elements of the plot forward.  So on that measure as a "cracking good read" copyright arch Will Self saying it is a failure - and probably one of the reasons it is not in the realms of TV adaptions (though Wikipedia tells me a Russian film was made of it in the 1990s).

It does have strengths though that really stand out that also put it outwith the realm of the disposable cheap novel.  In a sense Dostoevsky's ambitions for this work were not great he was really trying to find his feet following his lengthy exile.  But the stand-outs relate to a couple of set-pieces and as always in FD's work (well those that I have read so far) the development of ideas.

The opening chapter is remarkable where he encounters Nelly's grandfather seemingly an emaciated pauper and his dog, he witnesses his death in a very European setting (a coffee house) but in a very understated way.  That part will stay with me way longer than any of the later plot devices utilised by FD.  Also outstanding and indeed it is almost like it fell into the book from another novel is the confrontation between the Prince and Vanya.  It is partially hidden til this point but through an excoriating monologue the Prince reveals his villainous nature, his utter disdain for the wimpy Vanya (comparing him to the romantic poet Schiller) and in quite explicit tones for the team explains his love of debauchery and corruption of innocence. A really strong piece of writing which sadly is not really equalled anywhere else in the rest of the work.  As I observed earlier it also occurs at the culmination of the third instalment of the work.

Ideas around mortality, corruption and the nature of Russian Society are touched on but never fully developed which again suggests why the work is not up there with Dostoevsky's other works.  Alexei, before his betrayal of Natasha dabbles in a Utopian Socialist group and portrays the ideas in a fairly naive way - probably reflecting FD's cynicism at that time.  Interestingly at this post-Savile time the book touches on the possibility of  a peadophile ring involving aristocrats which there seems to be an attempt to put Nelly into.  The abuse of children is also one of the modern themes which Dostoevsky explores pretty well although the nature of the relationship between Nelly and Vanya is quite confused I think - similar to passages in his unfinished work which centred around a young girl of around Nelly's age.

Another significant element of the novel although ultimately I think one of its weaknesses is the character of Vanya.  He essentially is Dostoevsky.  His first (successful) novel has parallels with Poor Folk, as an aside he compares himself to other wealthier writers who can take years before they come up with a new novel whereas he needs to write to earn a living.  He also has pot-shots at publishers and indirectly at what it means to be a novelist when the simple Alexei says he wants to become one.

Stylistically though this is a problem it means that there is no differentiation between Dostoevsky the writer and Vanya the character.  Vanya is in almost every scene. Getting back in the swing of prose writing I guess that FD did not feel confident removing his all-seeing eye character.  The problem for that though is that the narrator simply becomes a cipher.  There is also no distance from the actions.  One pretty painful scene is where Natasha admits her love for Alexei to Vanya - it's almost like reading a teenage journal or listening to some early Morrissey lyrics - bleeding hearts on sleeves time.  It will be interesting to see if he continues to do this in his next works: I doubt he will.

So some highs (if that is the right word) and a few cringe-worthy lows in the book which does not really work on itself but only as part of Dostoevsky's overall oeuvre.

Adiga: Last Man in Tower - What would you do?

Communal living has long been a source for fiction writers - ask any soap opera or tv drama creator. Whether it's the world's longest running soap Coronation Street , Jimmy McGovern's er... "The Street" or Glendarroch in Take The High Road.  This drama can be intensified though when the community is literally living on top of each other in a communal tower as in Indian wunderkind Aravind Adiga's latest storming work - a searing and topical indictment of our neo-liberal world and what it makes people become.

The community here though is not just set up for dramatic tension and interaction they are an organisation - the tower they live in is a housing co-operative in Mumbai.  All decisions have to be made collectively, the neighbours have regular Parliaments to discuss issues related to the property and they employ the Secretary ,also a tenant, and the staff drawn from the nearby slums.  The flats are meagre with poor water supply and electricity but it is theirs.

The dilemma is immediate.  I am not giving anything away because the author puts the issue up front in the preface.  A property developer symbolic of the new wealth at the top of Mumbai puts an offer of untold wealth (in this world - specifically £210,000) to each tenant  so he can demolish the tower and build luxury flats which as is pointed out even with the money they get they wouldn't be able to afford.  As a co-op though everyone needs to agree or the entire deal falls away.  So do you keep the property developer at bay , maintain the co-operative housing or take the money and run.   The end result as Adiga also clearly signposts from the beginning  is that eventually only one resists : "The Last Man in Tower".

As a novel then the narrative is unusual in that the dilemma is immediately apparent and does not unfold over chapters.  I think this allows Adiga to clear the deck though and simply focus on how different people react to these situations.  In a sense it is the fleshing out of a philosophical dialogue or  a "political" discourse which in a sense all of us as inhabitants of a deregulated neo-liberal world have to engage with, particularly those of us that want to live in a better different sort of world.

5 paragraphs in and I haven't mentioned any of the characters which is strange because they are not simply pawns to fill in Adiga's discussion of  "choices".  The Last Man is the most respected part of the community a teacher Yogesh Murthy known as "Masterji" - he is recently widowed, retired and teaches the kids of the coop all sorts to help them with their schooling.  His apartment is full of books which he lends out.  In a sense Masterji is symbolic of Old India with its emphasis on education rather than the raw chaotic energy of bonkers entrepreneurial capitalism as shown by the property developer and offeror of the riches, self made millionaire Dharmen Shah.   One of the criticisms of the work could be it tries a little too hard to be allegorical.

He is not initially alone though "communist" social worker Mrs Rego and elderly couple the Pintos (Mrs Pinto is blind and would not be able to easily adapt to a new building) also hold out at first. In fact they seem more adamant than Masterji. The rest of the community almost immediately is turned by the cash though - which will be paid in installments and has to be agreed by a specific time limit.  At the core of the supporters are sleazy estate agent Ajwani, lazy coop Secretary Kothari and the formidable Mrs Puri who is the carer for her son with Downs Syndrome.

Another literary problem though is that many of the residents can only really be names as the work couldn't examine them all.  So they are literally just Yes votes to the offer.  This is slightly offset though by another character - the city of Mumbai which is portrayed brilliantly in the work.  The geography, politics, architecture and energy of the city are all here - and key moments for all the characters come in very distinct locations of the city.  To help there is even a map of the city at the start of the book

This interaction of contemporary city politics and structure with people reminded me very much of Tom Wolfe's work - the New York of Bonfire of the Vanities but even more the Atlanta of A Man in Full.

All dirty tricks are wheeled out by the property developer and his thoughtful but cynical sidekick to break the resistance.  Blackmail, financial and emotional, Violence, real and imagined all are used.  But still Masterji holds out - in fact the longer the battle goes on the stronger his principles become.  In one excellent scene he watches the poor of Mumbai struggling in a cafe after their back breaking work and sees the importance of his struggle.

Shah's ultimate weapon though, and he knows it, is to get the community to do his dirty work for him.  Initially the pressure is subtle Mrs Puri asks him to think of his family - a disaffected son and daughter in law who have little to do with him.  This is a common refrain in the work - each person by taking the money thinks of their immediate family and what they could do with the money.  How any individual who would prevent them helping their unit is the ultimately selfish man - although Masterji himself is protecting a broader view of family or community.  But the dreams for their families have a very precise cash limit - meaning they are limited by their very nature (and of course reliant on destroying a bigger property).  Access to these figures of cash which neo-liberalism does periodically particularly in the Majority World where the population are so desperate.  This community cannot be thrown out of their slums by security firms or the state they need to be persuaded by a cash incentive that it would be best for them.  I was reminded of the Elvis Costello/Robert Wyatt line from Shipbuilding "diving for dear life, when we should be diving for pearls".

Dreams of a better society which albeit in a twisted way the cooperative movement represented are shattered over the offer of hard currency.

Masterji is not persuaded and the methods used by the community become more and more horrible. His education once the virtue is now degraded, children are withdrawn from classes.  In a telling passage when they are attempting to undermine his character they criticise his educational methods stating he didnt stick to exam syllabus but tried to teach them "other" stuff.  Again showing how modern turbo capitalism attacks all elements of old societies that are not of immediate "use".    He seems to be able to resist it all though until the deadline. The climax when it comes is shocking, I thought, even though perhaps inevitable.  Although there is the partial redemption from an extremely unlikely character.  If it is an allegory Adiga is not optimistic over where this neo-liberal world is leading us and it is also not a coincidence that Mrs Puri borrows Murder on the Orient Express from Masterji at the start of the book.

There are flaws in this intriguing work.  The breaking of Mrs Rego's resolve is not particularly convincing as she is the only one with an explicit immediate political opposition to the development. Perhaps Adiga is making a point on the corrupt nature of Communist Politics in India or is cynical of the left-ism of Arundhati Roy who Rego has  pictures of up on her wall.  Either way I thought it didn't work.  In contrast to the Pintos where the threat of violence and the effect it has on an old couple is powerfully written.

I also thought it seemed a little rushed this is his third work in as many years - energy is good in writing and this novel abounds in it but I think more work could have teased out even more some of the themes.  Getting into the generally villainous Mrs Puri's head and the feelings she has to her disabled son or looking at the slum-life which surrounds the Tower.  This is all done but sometimes had too break neck a speed.

What is done well is his use of animal metaphor which is becoming a constant in his work.  Masterji's sighting of a jackal in the Zoo before the whole story begins - the Secretary's mystical memory of flamingoes.  Really strong and again accurate because of the prevalence of wildlife in Indian urban society.

As an Indian novel there is little reference to caste or really religion (only in passing and in one particularly odious character) and this is explained by the fact that Mumbai is now ruled by money.  Shah states it is all that matters - in contrast to when he was making his wealth.  That wealth as Shah finds offers no protection or guarantee which I think is one of the many points Adiga is making.  I could write on and on about this novel - there is much to read and argue about - so do it!  Anyway for £210 k what would you do?

The Village of Stepanchikovo: Dostoevsky's Trapped Comedy.

A companion piece to Uncle's Dream in some ways for FD's next work.  Also written in exile, also originally envisaged as a drama (which it was eventually staged as after Dost's death), also on the face of it a comic tale  of misunderstandings and machinations about the semi-aristocracy in Tsarist Russia- but I have to say this piece has a bit more substance to it and illustrates his ability to understand both human character and relationships.  Indeed the work has a very lightly disguised anger running through it which bursts out now and then - hardly surprising given he was coming to an end of his imprisonment and Siberian exile.

They (whoever they are!) say that great sitcoms stem from the characters being trapped - in a situation, a location, a personality: the pub in Cheers, the hotel in Fawlty Towers, the Office.  I'm not sure that theory holds up completely but there is an element of truth in it and this book illustrates it.  In a sense you cant get more trapped than a feudal society - your role was very specifically labelled and you could neither escape it nor ignore it.  Russia was a peculiar one though as it held on to its feudal trappings much longer than other similar societies whilst trying to develop a modernist outlook.  Britain maintained its feudal overlords as the recent Jubilee "celebrations" showed whilst making damned sure that real power was removed from them after the monarchy was restored following the English Civil War.  As old Moz so cleverly put it in Irish Blood English Heart

But in Russia the development of the elements of a modern state was done in a feudal way - so the hierarchy was maintained strictly in the civil service and the army (both controlled by the Tsar who of course was appointed by God).  In this tale a young student is returning to his adopted village home where his "Uncle" a retired Colonel from the army is struggling with his existence by the return of his mother and a parasitic entourage headed by a brilliant villainous character Foma Fomich.  Though the Colonel does not recognise this he is in awe of Fomich but wants his nephew to marry his children's governness who is facing poverty.

The return of the gauche youth essentially precipitates a crisis within this bizarre household and reveals hidden crises and loves. The comedy comes from the desciption of the grotesques who populate the Colonel's household - drawn to him because he is a "good man" but wealthy in control of many "souls" or serfs - written as this was before the 1862 Emancipation.  The writing skill of Dostoevsky was coming to the fore here with using the outsider to expose all of this in his return.

The hangers on in feudal courts at high and low levels must have been a real phenomenon in Russian Society - one escape from utter penury I guess must have been to be a chancer who proclaims higher normally spiritual powers who is showered with the wonders of the top table.   Rasputin (Russia's greatest love machine) confirms this  the real aristos eventually did him in angered by his position - but that was a couple of generations after Foma Fomich who was clearly cut from the same cloth.

Of the Dostoevsky books I have read so far with the exception of the protagonist in the Double this baddy is the best crafted characted I think he has written.  He is sanctimonious, manipulative and knows exactly how to exploit his relationship with the Colonel to maintain his power and situation.  To draw a parallel with great sitcoms again he is Albert Steptoe to the Harold of the Colonel!  He is as trapped as Harold is in the junkyard to Fomich but also his mother who also exploits her son but  who is utterly dependent on the chancer.

Powerfully he does not appear until the 100th page of the book but is spoken of almost from the first - a great dramatic device.  When he does you can almost here the vitriol in FD's description:  apparently FF is a vicarious characterisation of Gogol - the earlier Russian writer who ended in death a complete reactionary and supporter of serfdom.  Again similarly to his other early work FD runs the roost in parts of the tale over current fiction, journals and poetry in 1850s Russia - even quoting a poem in full at one part through the mouths of one of the children.

In FF's vicious bullying of the Colonel's peasants we can see the dilemma of the arrogant Russian nineteenth century intellectual - he despises the illiterate masses but wants to elevates them with his own higher knowledge: symbolised here by FF bullying them to learn French.  Quite painful to read actually and beyond a comedy.    The setting is clearly rural as well with the urban landscape of St Petersburg a distant reference as it was at that time for Dost.

FF has a symbiotic relationship with the Colonel though who is impressed not really by status but by knowledge - which FF ( a court jester in a previous time apparently) exploits to the full.  Unusually I guess for the time the comedy ends with a complete triumph for the villain "complete and unassailable" - who although he oversteps his mark with the Colonel pulls it back in and is restored in his parasitic place.
The other place where I sensed real anger on FD's part was his description of a wealthy single older woman who almost falls prey to gold diggers in a very well written couple of pages that really stand out from the rest of the work.

Plot wise it bounces along - I think it started as a serial a la Dickens - but that is not the real point of the work - it is a character study and as an ensemble piece is quite funny - a nun appears for no real reason at the end !  So although it has chapters called things like "Concerning the White Bull and a Peasant named Komarinsky" it is quite a complex piece which belies its appearance.  Maybe why it is quite difficult to get and not translated very often.  Perhaps not as weighty as his later works but the signs were there and it tells you much about Russian society and the human condition as well.