At the Edinburgh Book Festival, the Guardian have extracted a few salvos from James Kelman on Scottish literary culture.
“…it's always been an indication of that Anglocentric nature of what's at the heart of the Scottish literary establishment, that they will not see the tremendous art of a writer like Tom Leonard for example, and how they will praise the mediocre.”
I’m not quite clear who Kelman’s target is here. Who or what makes up the Scottish literary establishment? If we’re talking about those who hand out prizes, then these often go to literary novels. Talk of “praise” suggests critics and perhaps funders. Maybe he means the whole package – administrators, boffins, prize givers, funders, critics, newspapers, publishers – the lot. But perhaps it’s more a gesture of frustration that so little publicity is given to Scottish writers who are pushing literature forward compared to those who sell loads of books. If that’s the case, it’s the same all over the UK, not just in Scotland.
8 comments:
Rather a stupid comment I think, on so many levels ... hardly worth debating seriously.
ABJ
He expands somewhat on the point in the interview at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzoc8Ma25tk (haven't seen it all myself).
Actually The Herald's report is much more informative about what he said.
Still no idea what he's wheezing about. Literary prizes aren't given to the likes of Rankin and Rowling, never were.
I'm not aware of much literary praise for these authors either, but simply a huge amount of column space: because they're popular and of interest to a large amount of readers.
If his opinion is only that the fictional works of R&R are of less literary merit than Tom Leonard ... so what? Since when was it the Media's job to engage in worthy matters of taste and judgement?
Comparatively, Leonard is the only name being advocated as next in line for National Treasure status, by his various pals, so he's not doing that bad by comparison.
Sounds to me like different definitions or expectations of Entitlement. Which, from avowed socialist writers, is somewhat surprising. Maybe just old age.
ABJ
Poor old Jim does seem a bit confused, doesn't he? He hits out at Rankin and Rowling, but their popularity has absolutely nothing to do with "the Scottish literary establishment" -- neither is published by a Scottish publisher and their fame and fortune (whether you think it's deserved or not) has come to them because readers flock to buy their books, not because of any input by the Scottish literary establishment...whoever they may be.
(Although to be honest it does annoy me that Rankin now has honourary degree offers coming out of his ears and has just been made an Honorary Writing Fellow at the University of Edinburgh, when far more deserving writers -- in terms of 'literary merit' -- are left out in the cold. But that's obviously not JK's issue so I should probably stop digressing.)
So is he blaming readers? It doesn't appear so. To my mind, he just fancied having a go at a few people -- and hey, I'm inclined to think Rankin and Rowling aren't going to take any harm, and that they probably DO give Scottish literature "a bad name" (if only because they totally eclipse better but lesser-known writers with their huge fame). Do the "Scottish literary establishment" deserve to be picked on though? From my point of view, certainly not -- I'd much rather be north of the border than south of it in terms of being a writer and looking for support/funding! I did wonder if this was something to do with dialect not being recognised enough, since he mentioned Leonard -- but you're right, it's hard to fathom.
I love JK though, and I admire him for saying what a lot of people are thinking re: Rankin and Rowling. Just a shame he kind of lost the plot after that part...
"(Although to be honest it does annoy me that Rankin now has honourary degree offers coming out of his ears and has just been made an Honorary Writing Fellow at the University of Edinburgh, when far more deserving writers -- in terms of 'literary merit' -- are left out in the cold. But that's obviously not JK's issue so I should probably stop digressing.)"
Actually, having read the Herald's version of events, maybe this IS what JK is responding to -- the fact that these writers have left Scotland, become huge stars and now Scotland is clawing them back to try and turn them into the 'stars of Scottish literature,' as it were. The Guardian actually don't frame his quotes very well -- it seems they're preferring to concentrate on the "ooh, Kelman's slagging off JK Rowling!" aspect. If he IS objecting to the opportunities and whatnot that Scotland (although, not just the "literary establishment" -- more the media in general) have given to Rowling and co since they have become "potential assets" by becoming famous... I am inclined to agree.
But I'm not sure if that IS what he's saying or not.
Sounded to me like the following: "These folk are being lionised and getting on telly and getting attention and my pal Tom isn't and he's great and original and they're not." Pfff.
Rankin is dry dull sort who never says anything remotely interesting as a TV pundit, but why take this as a personal slight? What's telly got to do with it, as Tina Turner might have said?
ABJ
Post a Comment