"Remainder" by Tom McCarthy

The Hove Book Group gathered together on Thursday 22nd November 2012 to discuss Keith's choices.

First up was "Remainder" by Tom McCarthy.

"Why Keith?  Why?"

Keith replied that he wanted something modern, new and unknown, and that's what he got from this book.  Original, intriguing, intense, and humorous.

Tom McCarthy couldn’t get Remainder published in the UK at first. He eventually sold it to a French house who marketed it through art galleries rather than bookstores. It proved a critical hit and so was then picked up for a more traditional UK release.

Keith thought it was "an excellent book" and lavished it with an excellent 9/10.

As Keith is a fan of alternative scoring systems, Hamish emailed through a different approach for his review.  Using Kurt Vonnegut's eight rules for story writing he had this to say:

Hamish: alternative scoring system 

Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel the time was wasted: Was Hamish's time wasted?  The novel was certainly readable enough, dramatic action took place, the story progressed and Hamish kept turning pages.  It wasn’t hard work.  Sadly Hamish felt little emotional attachment to the novel though. Half a Vonnegut

Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for: The narrator totally dominated the book.  None of the other characters were developed enough.  The narrator suffered some mental illness or was just self obsessed and didn’t care.  Either way, Hamish found him vaguely irritating and difficult to relate to.  No Vonneguts 

Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water:  The narrator wanted to be real.  Naz initially wanted money but, as the book went on, wanted to feed his addiction to making things run like clockwork.  The other characters presumably just wanted money.  So they did all want something.  But Hamish gave no points because both the narrator and Naz’s desires seemed contrived and plain daft.  No Vonneguts

Every sentence must do one of two things—reveal character or advance the action: Hamish felt that no sentences revealed character.  The action was regularly and dramatically advanced however, although to what end?  Half a Vonnegut

Start as close to the end as possible: The narrator started with the accident and ended with the last re-enactment.  We learned nothing superfluous about his earlier life.  There were no offshoots from the plot, cameo appearances or flowery Rushdiesque descriptions of nearby vegetation.  It was succinct and to the point.  Whatever the point might have been.  One Vonnegut

A sadist

Be a Sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them—in order that the reader may see what they are made of:  Sadly nothing awful happened to the narrator.  No Vonneguts

Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia: Mr McCarthy cannot possibly have written this hoping to make love to the world surely?  The self obsession suggests he wrote it just for himself.  Which is of course how it should be and Hamish scored it  One Vonnegut

Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible. To hell with suspense. Readers should have such complete understanding of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the story themselves, should cockroaches eat the last few pages: The opening page telling us of some awful accident, but the book then actively refuses to give further details.  Early hopes were that things would be explained, it became increasingly evident that they would not.  The narrator/McCarthy actually took some pleasure in not explaining things.  Tom McCarthy utterly failed to make his story similarly believable.  No Vonneguts

So overall, Hamish awarded a grand total of 3 Vonneguts out of a potential 8.  In summary, "a fairly readable pile of complete old tosh".  Tristan converted the "Vonneguts" into the traditional HBG scoring system to reveal a dismissive 4/10.

Nick - used to live in Brixton

Nick, as an ex-Brixton resident, enjoyed the book's Brixton setting.  It was a way in for him.  Alas, after getting in the book never took off.  Too many reconstructions and re-enactments.  Remainder is a novel of ideas. It was clear to Nick that to have any chance of understanding what this book might be about he'd have to pay attention more to the themes than to the events: repetition; the barrier of consciousness from direct experience; the intransigency of matter.  Alas, this approach merely resulted in Nick concluding that this book was Iain Banks-lite.  5/10

Don, quickly got into the book, so much so that he was buoyed.  It was a page turner.  Akin to Blindness.  Don loved the cats...part of the re-enactment of the building and old apartment includes the view from it of a sloping tiled roof on which cats would lie in the sun. This part doesn’t work out so well as the cats placed on the roof keep falling off it and dying. The cats were not enough for Don though.  He demands more than dead cats from his reading, and - as he read on - the book's lack of characters started to annoy, and - at the conclusion of the book - he felt it was only worthy of 6/10.

A cat

Nigel, whilst a fan of Kurt Vonnegut, was not convinced by all of his rules (See Hamish's review above).  Nigel enjoyed the way the book allowed the reader to fill in the blanks.  Nigel was not really sure what it was all about, however he found it beguiling and it sparked off many thoughts and ideas around memory, feelings, experience, time, and life.  

As the book's mysterious councillor reminds the reader towards the book's conclusion: "No less than one hundred and twenty actors have been used. Five hundred and eleven props — tyres, signs, tins, tools, all in working condition — have been assembled and deployed. And that’s just for the tyre shop scene. The number of people who have been employed in some capacity or other over the course of all five re-enactments is closer to one thousand.” He paused again and let the figure sink in, then continued: "All these actions, into which so much energy has been invested, so many man-hours, so much money — all, taken as a whole, confront us with the question: for what purpose?"  For what purpose indeed?  8/10

Tristan

Tristan found the book irritating.  Was it meant to be irritating?  Where was the cleverness?  Tristan felt that the only cleverness was in the madness of the narrator.  Where was the humour?  To what extent is the narrator trustworthy? Is he awake? Was the book a dream? At one dizzying juncture the narrator admits that a conversation he just described didn’t actually happen. Later the narrator is dogged by a smell of cordite. Nobody else can smell it except for one man.  We can’t trust the narrator.  Who can we trust?  4/10

Robin explained he didn't like the book.  Robin recently went to an exhibition in London. By chance he got talking to one of the curators of the exhibition - a sculptor. Robin mentioned that he was reading Remainder. Was sculpture a theme?  The cutting away of stuff until what remains is revealed? Michelangelo spoke of the statue being inside the block of marble already. Cut away the excess material and the statue will be revealed. 3/10

Robin - chance encounter with a sculptor

So, in summary, a book that inspired a mixed set of reactions, and a great discussion.  The average score from Hove's finest - 6/10.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Keith & Nick

With his second choice, Keith wanted to push his own boundaries, and having obsessively perused numerous obituaries he was inspired to find out more about Chris Marker (RIP), and specifically La Jetée (The Pier, 1962).  It's a c30-minute post-third world war story, made up entirely of stills, except for one brief moving shot of a woman opening her eyes. This futuristic photo-novel film was semi-remade by Terry Gilliam as 12 Monkeys in 1995.

Keith felt that La Jetée abstracts cinema almost to its essence in bringing to life the story of a post-apocalyptic man obsessed with an image from his past.  "A little wonder" with fantastic style and excellent images.  Those images endured for Keith.  8/10

Hamish thought that for a short slideshow of photos backed by sounds and narration, this was highly effective.  It reminded him of Godspeed You Black Emperor for some reason.  Hamish enjoyed it.  Five Godspeeds out of a possible seven.  Tristan converted this into a score of 7/10.

Good news for Don

Nick watched the film in French, despite not speaking the language.  When questioned, he was a bit vague on the plot.  He still loved it though.  8/10

Don watched a different film by Chris Marker - San Soleil.  The good news for Don was that the film featured some cats.  Cats and owls were Marker's favourite animals and were a central theme of Sans Soleil.  Don explained that San Soleil also focuses on the weird and the titillating (taxidermied animals in sex poses, an animatronic JFK in a shopping mall).  Marker explains what he sees with the curiosity and empathy of an anthropologist.  San Soleil also has an uneasy relationship with truth.  Don explained that it undermines itself at every opportunity. What is stock footage and what is original? Are scenes separated by geography also separated by years?  Don was unsure.
7/10.

Robin - shocked

Nigel explained the reasons for his high tolerance for art cinema.  These included a woman called Lemmy, carrot cake, coffee in polystyrene cups, and The Electric Cinema in Notting Hill Gate.  Nigel liked the photography and the film's dream-like quality.  7/10

Tristan marvelled at how the still images traced one man's attempt to reclaim an image from his past, and in particular, the poetic, provocative meld of global catastrophe and human frailty.  Why isn't there more of this stuff?  8/10

Robin was also enthused, so much so that he watched both the French version and the English version.  Robin was shocked by the moment the woman blinked - the only moving image in the film. 7/10.