King Cormac

I had only one problem with Cormac McCarthy. He was crap.

More later.

Okay?

For now, let’s consider another famous writer. Millions of people have been writing English for hundreds of years. So the competition is intense for “Worst Simile Ever Written in English”. I still think this must be a leading contender:

Billy Nolan was at the pink fuzz-covered wheel [of the car]. Jackie Talbot, Henry Blake, Steve Deighan, and the Garson brothers, Kenny and Lou, were also squeezed in. Three joints were going, passing through the inner dark like the lambent eyes of some rotating Cerberus.

That’s from Stephen King’s Carrie (1974), describing some ill-intentioned teenagers smoking joints in a car. The paragraph starts gently and unpretentiously, lulling you into a false sense of security. Then wham! It hits you with “like the lambent eyes of some rotating Cerberus”. And where do I begin to dissect the wrongness of that simile? It’s simultaneously pretentious and illogical and ill-judged and anachronistic and clankingly clumsy and just plain stoopid. So where do I begin? Okay, I’ll begin with this observation: Cerberus had six eyes, not three (he had three heads, remember). So how did his six “lambent eyes” look like three glowing joints? Were his eyes very close-set? Did he keep three of them closed? Was he in fact part-dog, part-Cyclops, so that he only had three eyes after all? Yes, by “rotating” King means that now the three right eyes, now the three left eyes of Cerberus are visible, but there would be times when all six eyes were visible. And why is Cerberus rotating anyway?

I don’t know. And those questions by no means exhaust the idiotic possibilities raised by the simile. Let’s now ask how King’s lambent-eyed Cerberus was “rotating”. If his whole body was rotating on a vertical axis through his shoulders, say, then his three heads and six eyes would have been following too big an arc to fit the scene. So one has to assume that it was only his three heads and six eyes rotating on his one neck. Round and round and round. Which is a ridiculous image, not an eerie or ominous one.

No, we gotta face facts: King aimed for the Underworld and shot himself in the arse. And for the icing on the cake, we’ve got that poetic “some”. It wasn’t “a rotating Cerberus”, which would have been quite bad enough. It was “some rotating Cerberus”, as though King was setting his simile gently and carefully down on a bed of black velvet or plinth of polished obsidian, awestruck by the depth of his own erudition and the breadth of his own imagination. Fair enough: he’s human, he erred, I can forgive him. But how did the simile get past his editor and publisher and wife? Why did someone not say to him: “Steve, I like the book, in fact I love the book, but that appalling simile in part one has just gotta go?” Or why didn’t an editor suggest a re-write? I’d suggest this:

• Three joints were going, shifting in the inner dark like the glowing eyes of a watchful Cerberus.

Now the simile kinda works. The teenagers are up to something evil, but they don’t know that they’re going to unleash hell and harm themselves too. There’s authorial irony in the simile now: the hell-hound Cerberus is with them in spirit, conjured by the passing of the joints, but they, as characters in the story, don’t know it. They don’t know that Cerberus is patiently watching them, waiting to feast on their souls. I think the re-write removes the pretentiousness of linking ’70s American teenagers in a car with a monster from Greek mythology. The teenagers are evil but petty. It’s appropriate that they’re ignorant of grander and grotesquer things, like the three-headed hell-hound Cerberus and the telekinetic powers of the girl they’re planning to humiliate.

Alas, King or one of his editors didn’t re-write the simile. The original stayed put and turned the sentence into one of the worst I’ve ever read. And it was definitely the worst I’ve ever read in a book by Stephen King. That simile was bad by King’s own standards, because he’s not usually a pretentious or preening writer. So why did he write so badly there? I suspect the malign influence of another and much more critically acclaimed writer: the recently deceased Cormac McCarthy, who is easily the most pretentious and over-rated writer I’ve ever come across. I couldn’t finish Blood Meridian (1985) and although I did manage to finish The Road (2006), it didn’t change my opinion of the author. Cormac is crap. But Stephen King takes him seriously and, I suspect, was paying some kind of misguided homage to him when he came up with that appallingly bad “like the lambent eyes of some rotating Cerberus.”

If I’d read more of Cormac McCarthy’s books, I might be able to provide stronger evidence of my theory about his malign influence on that particular sentence in Carrie. But why would I want to read more of Cormac McCarthy’s books? I’m not a masochist and I don’t like reading bad English and pretentious prose. All the same, here’s a bit from The Road that suggests to me that King was imitating Cormac:

When he woke in the woods in the dark and the cold of the night he’d reach out to touch the child sleeping beside him. Nights dark beyond darkness and the days more gray each one than what had gone before. Like the onset of some cold glaucoma dimming away the world. His hand rose and fell softly with each precious breath. He pushed away the plastic tarpaulin and raised himself in the stinking robes and blankets and looked toward the east for any light but there was none. In the dream from which he’d wakened he had wandered in a cave where the child led him by the hand. Their light playing over the wet flowstone walls. Like pilgrims in a fable swallowed up and lost among the inward parts of some granitic beast.

There’s a lot of bad writing there, but I want to look at the two similes. They both use bad and pretentious imagery and they both have a would-be poetic “some”. Take the first simile. What on earth is a “cold glaucoma”? That doesn’t make sense. It isn’t the glaucoma that’s cold: it’s the way the glaucoma makes the world appear. “Cold glaucoma” is certainly an interesting medical concept, but it’s crap writing in a novel. Now take the second simile. What on earth is a “granitic beast”? If a beast is made of granite, how does it swallow people, let alone digest them? Granite is very solid and very rigid. The simile doesn’t work. And why did McCarthy say “inward parts” rather than the stronger “bowels”? Because he was doing what he did so often: writing badly and carelessly and pretentiously. “Granitic beast” is a stoopid image and the pretentious “granitic” makes it even worse.

Okay, neither simile is as bad as King’s “lambent-eyes-of-Cerberus” atrocity, but I detect a family resemblance and I think that King was trying to imitate some earlier writing by McCarthy. He shouldn’t have done. The ironic thing is that King himself is a better writer than McCarthy. I am too. But then who isn’t? It’s much easier to think of writers who are better than Cormac McCarthy than of writers who are worse. Let’s see: Will Self is worse. But who else? I’m glad to say that I can’t come up with anyone else. If I could come up with someone else, I would’ve suffered by reading another very bad writer.

Anyway, here’s my re-write of that extract from The Road:

When he woke in the woods in the dark and cold he’d reach out and touch the child sleeping beside him. Nights dark beyond darkness and each day grayer than the day before, as though he viewed the world through dying eyes. His hand rose and fell softly with each breath. He pushed away the tarpaulin and raised himself in the stinking blankets and looked toward the east for light. In the dream from which he’d wakened he had wandered in a cave where the child led him by the hand. Light played over the wet flowstone walls. They seemed like travelers in a story, swallowed and lost in the bowels of a petrified giant.

That’s still not very good, but it’s a definite improvement. If you don’t agree, you have a cloth ear for prose. And here’s my review of the whole book from 2013:

Highway to Hell

Cormac McCarthy won the Pulitzer Prize for The Road in 2007. The book is set in the aftermath of a world-wide cataclysm.

So is Stephen King’s The Stand (1978).

But The Road is much shorter than The Stand.

It makes up for this by being

much more pre

tentious

too.

Okay?

It is also much

less enter

taining.

Which is not to say that

The Road doesn’t have its

entertain

ing

bits.

For example

(spoiler alert)

the bit where the

unnamedfatherandsonprotagonists

go

into a wood and find

a fire where

some folks (far from

unferal)

have been preparing to

roast

and

eat a

b

a

b

y

.

.

.

For me

this was a

laugh-

out-loud mo

ment.

The “catamites” were pretty

funny

,

also

.

If you take Cormac McCarthy

seriously

my brother (or

sister)

I think that

you need to

grow up.

Okay?

But you

probably

nev

er

w

i

l

l

.

.

.


Elsewhere Other-Accessible…

• A Reader’s Manifesto — B.R. Myers agrees with me about McCarthy, inter alios (et alias)

Double-Gweeling


My short-story collection Gweel & Other Alterities has very kindly been re-published by D.M. Mitchell at Incunabula:

• Gweel & Other Alterities – Incunabula’s new edition
• Once More (With Gweeling) – my short review of the new edition
• Incunabula Media — wildness and weirdness in words and more


(click for larger image)

Performativizing Papyrocentricity #74

Papyrocentric Performativity Presents…

• A Big Book about Books – The Penguin Classics Book, Henry Eliot (Penguin 2018)

• Wrecks & Drugs & Rock & Roll – Bodies: Life and Death in Music, Ian Winwood (Faber 2022)

• In the Bland of the Blind – An Unexplained Death: The True Story of a Body at the Belvedere, Mikita Brottman (Canongate 2018)

• Hu Thru Mu – The Musical Human: A History of Life on Earth, Michael Spitzer (Bloomsbury 2021)

• A Bit of EngLit – The Power of Delight: A Lifetime in Literature: Essays 1962-2002, John Bayley (Duckworth 2005)

• Chrome Tome – The Secret Lives of Colour, Kassia St Clair (John Murray 2018)

• Cannonball Corpse – AC/DC: The Story of the Original Monsters of Rock, Jerry Ewing (Carlton Books 2015)

• Chimpathy for the Devil? — Oasis: Supersonic: The Complete, Authorised and Uncut Interviews, curated by Simon Halfon (Nemperor 2021)

• D for Deviant, K for Korpse… — Doktor Deviant’s Diary of Depravity: Kandid Konfessions of a Kompulsive Korpse-Kopulator, ed. Dr David Kerekes and Samuel P. Salatta (Visceral Visions 2022)


Or Read a Review at Random: RaRaR

Performativizing Papyrocentricity #73

Papyrocentric Performativity Presents…

• Hod is G-d – Playmaker: My Autobiography, Glenn Hoddle with Jacob Steinberg (HarperCollins 2021)

• The Wheel Deal – Cyclogeography: Journeys of a London Bicycle Courier, Jon Day (Notting Hill Editions 2015)

• Manc Wanc – From Manchester with Love: The Life and Opinions of Tony Wilson, Paul Morley (Faber & Faber 2021)

• Goyles, Goyles, Goyles… – I, Gargoyle: Toxic True Tales of Fetid Freaks, Wild-Eyed Weirdos and Kore Kounter-Kultural Kooks Who Insidiously Identify as Human Gargoyles…, edited by David Kerekes and Norman Nekrophile (Visceral Visions, forthcoming)

• Sneaky McCready – The Deceiver, Frederick Forsyth (1991)

• Shake’s Peer – Shakespeare, Bill Bryson (William Collins 2017)

• Winged Words – The Last Enemy, Richard Hillary (1942)

• The Cult of Ult – 1312: Among the Ultras: A Journey with the World’s Most Extreme Fans, James Montague (Ebury Press 2021)


Or Read a Review at Random: RaRaR

Performativizing Papyrocentricity #72

Papyrocentric Performativity Presents…

• Homing in the Gloaming – Homing: On Pigeons, Dwellings and Why We Return, Jon Day (John Murray 2019)

• Niceberg – The Storyteller: Tales of Life and Music, Dave Grohl (Simon & Schuster 2021)

• Nasty Lastly – Nasty Endings 1, compiled by Dennis Pepper (Oxford University Press 2001)

• Daysed and Confused – Hawkwind: Days of the Underground: Radical Escapism in the Age of Paranoia, Joe Banks (Strange Attractor 2020)

• World-Wide Wipe-Out – Empty World, John Christopher (1977)

• Chuck Off – Post Office, Charles Bukowski (1971)

• #AllDayDong – Dong, Peter Sotos and Sam Salatta (TransVisceral Books 2022)

• Meet the Maverick Munch-Bunch… – Naked Krunch: The Sinister, Sordid and Strangely Scrumptious Story of SavSnaq, Dr David M. Mitchell (Savoy Books 2022)


Or Read a Review at Random: RaRaR

Performativizing Papyrocentricity #71

Papyrocentric Performativity Presents…

• Clive Drive – Unreliable Memoirs (1980) and Always Unreliable: The Memoirs (2001), Clive James

• Nou’s Who – Art Nouveau, Camilla de la Bedoyere (Flame Tree Publishing 2005)

• Hit and Mistletoe – Through It All I’ve Always Laughed, Count Arthur Strong (Faber & Faber 2013)

• Beauties and Beasts — Shardik, Richard Adams (1974)


Or Read a Review at Random: RaRaR

Beauties and Beasts

Shardik, Richard Adams (1974)

Is it thirty years since I last read Shardik? No, it think it’s nearer forty. But as I read the book in March this year I began remembering small things before I came to them again. And I realized how deep the characters and story had sunk into my mind on those early readings long ago. Indeed, I felt that coming across the book again in a second-hand shop had been important-with-a-capital-I, as though I’d been meant to meet it again now.

Maybe it wasn’t and maybe I hadn’t. But the opening chapters, in which the simple hunter Kelderek finds and helps to capture the giant bear Shardik, have been some of the most vivid and enjoyable literature I’ve ever read. Adams conjures the forest fire that drives Shardik, burned and near-dead, across the great river Telthearna; brings Kelderek and other characters to life with something like Dickensian vividness and depth; gives them a solid and scented world to inhabit; and evokes a genuine sense of matriarchal mystery and magic around the island of Quiso, where the Tuginda and her priestesses have awaited the return of Shardik for centuries. And Shardik himself is a huge and dangerous presence, slapping a leopard aside like a twig before he collapses and begins to die of his burns. He’s awesome even in his distress:

The bear was still lying among the scarlet trepsis, but already it looked less foul and wretched. Its great wounds had been dressed with some kind of yellow ointment. One girl was keeping the flies from its eyes and ears with a fan of fern-fronds, while another, with a jar of ointment, was working along its back and as much as she could reach of the flank on which it was lying. Two others had brought sand to cover patches of soiled ground which they had already cleaned and hoed with pointed sticks. The Tuginda was holding a soaked cloth to the bear’s mouth, as [Kelderek] himself had done, but was dipping it not in the pool but in a water-jar at her feet. The unhurried bearing of the girls contrasted strangely with the gashed and monstrous body of the creature they were tending. Kelderek watched them pause in their work, waiting as the bear stirred restlessly. Its mouth gaped open and one hind leg kicked weakly before coming to rest once more among the trepsis. – end of chapter 10 in Book I, “Ortelga”

If Shardik continued like that, I think it would be much better-known today. But it doesn’t. It turns not just grimmer, but less well-written and less psychologically plausible. The simple hunter Kelderek, friend of children and awestruck acolyte of Shardik, turns into a ruthless priest-king who cages his bear-god and oversees a trade in child-slaves to finance a war of attrition against the enemies of his tribe. And that small and impoverished tribe, from the half-forgotten river-island of Ortelga in the far north, has overthrown an empire by then. Shardik has given them victory, becoming a literal deus ex machina in a crucial early battle. Or perhaps that should be deus in machina:

Suddenly a snarling roar, louder even than the surrounding din of battle, filled the tunnel-like roadway under the trees. There followed a clanging and clattering of iron, sharp cracks of snapped wood, panic cries and a noise of dragging and scraping. Baltis’ voice shouted, “Let go, you fools!” Then again broke out the snarling, full of savagery and ferocious rage. Kelderek leapt to his feet.

The cage had broken loose and was rushing down the hill, swaying and jumping as the crude wheels ploughed ruts in the mud and struck against protruding stones. The roof had split apart and the bars were hanging outwards, some trailing along the ground, others lashing sideways like a giant’s flails. Shardik was standing upright, surrounded by long, white splinters of wood. Blood was running down one shoulder and he foamed at the mouth, beating the iron bars around him as Baltis’ hammers had never beaten them.

The point of a sharp, splintered stake had pierced his neck and as it swayed up and down, levering itself in the wound, he roared with pain and anger. Red-eyed, frothing and bloody, his head smashing through the flimsy lower branches of the trees overhanging the track, he rode down upon the battle like some beast-god of apocalypse. – Book I, ch. 22, “The Cage”

I don’t like that “splintered stake … levering itself in the wound.” It seems gratuitous. And that kind of thing doesn’t stop. Shardik suffers from beginning to end of the book and at times I felt as though he’d become little more than a punch-bag for the plot. Although many readers will come to this book as young fans of Watership Down (1972), I don’t think it’s a good book for children. There are cruelty and ruthlessness in Watership Down, but they don’t overwhelm the story as they come to do in Shardik. And the characters who suffer in Watership Down are rabbits; in Shardik, they’re children and a giant bear. There was one act of cruelty that struck me with horror when I read it as a teenager, because it suddenly and ruthlessly smashed the hope I had invested in a character.

I barely noticed the incident this time, because I knew it was coming and because I wasn’t captivated by Adams’ prose any more. He starts the book well, but his best here isn’t as good as his best in Watership Down. And his prose gets much less good after Book I. Plus, I could see his influences more clearly: classical myth and history, the Bible, Dickens. The book begins with these lines from Homer:

οἴκτιστον δὴ κεῖνο ἐμοῖς ἴδον ὀφθαλμοῖσι
πάντων, ὅσσ᾽ ἐμόγησα πόρους ἁλὸς ἐξερεείνων.

They’re not translated, but they mean:

It was the most pitiable sight of all I saw exploring the pathways of the sea. – Odyssey XII, 258

Homer’s influence hovers below the surface everywhere in Book I, sometimes bursting through in long and elaborate similes that don’t always work very well. But I think that something else that doesn’t always work very well is part of Adams’ linguistic cleverness rather than his clumsiness. Shardik is set in a fantasy universe with simple technology and some kind of magic. Like many writers before him and after, Adams creates new languages to go with his new world. The hunter Kelderek is nicknamed Zenzuata, meaning “Play-with-children”. Later he becomes Crendrik, the “Eye of God” and high-priest of Shardik, the “Power of God.” When he’s still a simple hunter he hears a song with the refrain “Senandril na kora, senandril na ro”; at another time he marvels at the beauty of a gold-and-purple bird called a kynat; at another he eats the ripe fruit of a tendriona on the island of Quiso, where the high-priestess is called the Tuginda and addressed with the honorific säiyett.

The strange names and words transport you from the here-and-now of reality to the elsewhere-and-elsewhen of fantasy. But what about Kabin, one of the cities of the Beklan Empire, and Deelguy, one of the lands bordering the Empire? Kabin echoes English “cabin” and Deelguy echoes English “deal” and “guy”. They don’t look or sound right (though perhaps Deelguy is meant to be pronounced “deel-goo-ee”). But that’s linguistic cleverness, I think. The paradox is that it’s not right if all the words and names of an invented language sound right to the ears of Anglophones. If they all sound right, that is, if they’re all exotic and alien, it means that they’ve been created with English in mind. So they’re a kind of un-English or anti-English, rather than something existing without any regard to English. In Shardik, it’s as though Kabin echoes English by chance, which is just what you might expect of a truly exotic and alien language. So that’s linguistic cleverness, I think.

And it’s also linguistically clever of Adams to invent an accent within the story for native speakers of Deelguy who are talking Beklan or Ortelgan. Here’s the slimy slave-trader Lalloc speaking to the chief villain of the story, the evil slave-trader Genshed: “I was in Kabin, Gensh, when the Ikats come north. Thought I had plonty of time to gotting back to Bekla, but left it too late – you ever know soldiers go so fost, Gensh, you ever know? Cot off, couldn’t gotting to Bekla […] no governor in Kabin – new governor, man called Mollo, been killed in Bekla, they were saying – the king kill him with his own honds – no one would take money to protect me.” (Book VI, ch. 51, “The Gap of Linsho”) The diminutive “Gensh” used by Lalloc is clever too. Genshed is a monster, but Lalloc thinks that the two of them are friends. His accent works as a kind of fantastic realism: yes, when someone from Deelguy spoke Beklan, he would speak in a strange way. And Adams captures that in English.

However, he puts words into the mouth of another character that are clumsy rather than clever: “the resources of this splendid establishment” (used of an inn); “riparian witch-doctor” (used of Kelderek); “bruin-boys [who] burst on an astonished world” (used of the followers of Shardik); “bear-bemused river-boys” (ditto); “some nice, lonely place with no propinquitous walls or boulders”; and so on. Those are the words of Elleroth, Ban of Sarkid, a “dandified” aristocrat who is secretly working against Kelderek and the Ortelgans. He’s an important character, central to the plot, so it’s a pity that, in part, he’s also a cliché out of old-fashioned boys’ literature. He’s a fop who’s also a fighter and whose languid, drawling irony covers serious purpose and emotion. It’s as though an Old Etonian or Harrovian has suddenly appeared. The way he’s presented is out of place in the fantasy universe of Shardik: “propinquitous” would work in one of Clark Ashton Smith’s Hyperborea stories. But it doesn’t work here as dialogue.

Another aspect of Elleroth’s character does work. Before he appears, we’ve seen Shardik through the eyes of his devoted followers, who swear “by the Bear” and see him triumph over all doubt and lead the Ortelgans to victory. After Elleroth appears, we suddenly see Shardik and his cult through the eyes of someone who despises “the bear” and his followers. To Elleroth, the Ortelgans are ursine swine. Later still, the perspective shifts in another way. The final chapters of the book are partly in the form of home-bound letters by an ambassador from Zakalon, a hitherto unknown land where they swear “by the Cat”. What is that about? What cult is practised in Zakalon? We never learn, but the glimpse of something beyond the story increases the power and reality of Shardik’s world.

And Shardik is, despite its frequent clumsiness, a powerful book. Sometimes its power is beautiful, sometimes it’s horrific, and new readers will remember both the beauty and the horror as I did in all the time that has passed since my last readings. Forty years on, I’m glad to have met it again, read it again, and re-acquainted myself with its power and its beauty. It isn’t as good as Watership Down, but it’s better than The Plague Dogs. And not many books are as good as Watership Down.


Elsewhere other-accessible…

• Sward and Sorcery – a review of Watership Down (1972)
• Paw is Less – a review of The Plague Dogs (1977)

Performativizing Papyrocentricity #70

Papyrocentric Performativity Presents…

• Fish, Not Frog – Dizionario Italiano: Dizionario della Lingua Contemporanea (Vallardi 2017)

• Headstrong, Heroic and Hellbent on Glory – The Brigadier Gerard stories of Arthur Conan Doyle

• Art of Darkness – Art-Bandit: Interrogating the Outlaw Aesthetics of Über-Maverick Gay Atelierista John Coulthart, Dr Joan Jay Jefferson (Visceral Visions i.a.w. University of Salford Press 2022)

• Fuller Frontal – Deviant. Devious. Depraved.: The Sickening, Slimy and Sizzlingly Septic Story of Noxiously Nasty Necrophile Nonce David Fuller, David Kerekes, with an introduction by David Slater (Visceral Visions 2022)

• Submarine Skink – Underwater Adventure, Willard Price (1955)

• Pair’s Fair – The Dark Hours, Michael Connelly (2021)

• Front Row for the Axl Show – Nothin’ But a Good Time: The Spectacular Rise and Fall of Glam Metal, Justin Quirk (Unbound 2020)

• Posturing Proctoglossist – Humour, Terry Eagleton (Yale University Press 2019)


Or Read a Review at Random: RaRaR

Performativizing Papyrocentricity #69

Papyrocentric Performativity Presents:

• Psyches and Psychoses – the work of Guy de Maupassant

• Buzz Off – The Wasp Factory, Iain Banks (1984)

• Drink Ink – The Way to Dusty Death, Alistair MacLean (1973)

• Littlerature – In Miniature: How Small Things Illuminate the World, Simon Garfield (Canongate 2018)

• Le Paon dans les Pyrénées – The Man in the Red Coat, Julian Barnes (Penguin 2019)

• Bon and Off – Two Sides to Every Glory: AC/DC: The Complete Biography, Paul Stenning (Chrome Dreams 2005)

• The Fuel in the Skull – The Jewel in the Skull, Michael Moorcock (1969)

• Suspicious Substance – Substance: Inside New Order, Peter Hook (Simon & Schuster, 2016)


Or Read a Review at Random: RaRaR

Un Paon Papyrocentrique

• Le Paon dans les Pyrénées — a review at Papyrocentric Performativity of Julian Barnes’ The Man in the Red Coat (2019), which contains a lot about Robert de Montesquiou


Elsewhere other-accessible

• Portrait of a Peacock — Cornelia Otis Skinner’s biographical sketch of Montesquiou