I rarely write negative reviews – I prefer to just abandon a book and move on. But I was provoked by reading on the cover that “this is the best book about poetry I’ve ever read” (The Guardian), “among my indispensible books” (Poetry Review) and a “modern classic (The Spectator), and also so many enthusiastic reviews on Goodreads; it would be cowardly of me to shrink from the task. I need to warn you – don’t read this book. There are far better alternatives.
It’s a novel. Many wonderful poems are cited in it, and if I wanted a selection of nice poems I would look for one put together by Gladwell. A few are even written by Gladwell, a poet unafraid to risk his own work in this impressive company, keen to remind us at frequent intervals that he is indeed a poet. I have no doubt whatsoever that he knows his stuff and I turned to his book for inspiration. I did not turn to his book just to read a selection of nice poems. Having set the book up as a novel that is how it should be judged.
Gladwell does stop on occasion to make remarks about the poems he cites and he has some enlightening things to say. If he said more I would have appreciated that very much - I'd bet he could write a brilliant guide to poetry - but he says very little. He offers only snippets, starts to get interesting, then switches the subject. He leaves the poetry and returns to his novel.
In most chapters, Gladwell describes an exercise for aspiring writers of poetry and I imagine some readers will enjoy taking on these assignments. I can only assume these are the sort of activity one could expect on a creative writing course, since Gladwell depicts himself as a tutor for a group of students following his programme through a term. I am not sure I would want to have him for a tutor, since he describes his approach to teaching in such an offhand way. I am not sure that the exercises as described are terribly constructive, nor that his programme is in reality structured around any cumulative learning goals, but perhaps his attitude is based on an awareness that one cannot teach poets to write, one can only invite them to have a go.
In every chapter, a different (dead) poet turns up to offer a reading and to answer questions from the students of poetry. They are all significant figures from the 19th Century (plus Yeats) and there is a huge amount to be gained by considering things they have each said about the craft of poetry.
Unfortunately, they do not actually say very much in this book and the glimpses we are offered are infuriatingly trite. Poets have not only said a great deal, they have also engaged in strident and outspoken disagreements with each other, with their predecessors and with their critics. For pity’s sake there is a wealth of material to be picked over in a guide such as this – or alternatively, in a guide that rose to the occasion and did not flop like this flaccid text for lack of energy and drive. Take Coleridge’s Frost at Midnight, which is used in this text: it was not just a jolly nice poem worth reading, it was also part of a serious assault on conventional poetry in its day, a remarkable and radical announcement of something new, a Quixotic tilt at windmills. There is just no sense of the sheer energy at work in the most interesting poetry of any period, then or now. The best poets do not just write poems – they write manifestos, they make statements, they demand attention, they provoke change. There is a reason why Coleridge was awake and hyper-alert at midnight and it is for the same reason that poets are described as the movers and shakers of the world forever, and no hint of that appears here.
None of these interesting things happen in this book because it continually switches from poetry to the absurd plot of a bland and unimaginative novel. It is not as if Gladwell even aspires to write novels rather than poems. Very early – on page 25 – a student says to him “I’m writing a novel.” Gladwell responds: “Oh. I said that to my teacher and he called me a whore...” [p25]
Well, Gladwell has written one all the same and there is nothing the matter with the concept of teaching through a novel. [Among the very best and most challenging textbooks on management theory taught on my MBA course was a novel called The Goal, which I recommend warmly – though it is a bit lateral to our interest here!] In this novel, Gladwell is the tutor on a creative writing course for students wishing to write poetry, and through an Autumn term of twelve sessions, he introduces his students to a range of 19th Century poets and sets exercises for them. The creative twist is that the dead poets actually turn up to give a reading of their work and answer questions from the students. I doubt if any reader would have the least difficulty suspending disbelief for the duration of his novel, in order to bring dead poets back to life, and many readers would probably enjoy hearing how and why ST Coleridge invented the concept of suspending disbelief to answer the long running conundrum as to how drama works with its audiences.
What could go wrong with that perfectly workable plan is that Gladwell lacks the imagination or the technique to make it work – he is a poet but he is clearly not a novelist. He tries to sustain throughout the delusion that he has no memory of what or where he is, and that he is completely unaware of what takes place on the six days between his weekly teaching assignments. Where am I, who am I, what am I doing here, what is happening to me, the whole thing is dull. When he does wheel his dead poets onto his stage, he makes infuriatingly limited use of them. He seems content just to have name-checked them. All that tells me is that he has failed to summon up a sensible description of his imagined world and is floundering instead with tedious and repetitive nonsense. There is just about none of the necessary circumstantial detail that paints a believable picture for the reader in a well written novel. I suspect that readers who loved his book have used their own imaginations to fill in the huge empty spaces and given Gladwell the credit, which he does not deserve.
Even worse, the tutor in his novel is continually trying to use streetwise language and ‘cool’ mannerisms to establish credibility with his much younger students and that is pretty well always a terrible approach to younger people from any older adult, let alone from any teacher; it normally falls flat and it earns more scorn than respect. I further despise the assumption that the public, or students, or young people (whoever is the imagined target audience here) will only stick with his novel if it is insistently amusing and witty. Most poetry is not comical, much really great poetry makes us want to cry and I fail to appreciate why readers of poetry must be treated like the audience of a stand up comedian. Even stand up comedians can sometimes do an entire gig without being overtly funny.
The idea that great teachers behave like one of the kids is in my humble opinion false and also undesirable. There is even a clue to one reason for this in the novel, which makes reference several times to the notion that students are customers who buy their education and can choose to attend or not whatever session they choose. They are not customers, poetry is not a commodity, education is not a commercial transaction, and their payments could never purchase what Gladwell has to offer because they could never afford its true value and it is not his to sell – it is a common, shared heritage created by dead poets. If he wants to teach this heritage, we need him to act the adult.
Of course he is a good poet. Of course he writes many magical passages showing his genuine insight into poetry. He’s just a rubbish novelist and this book is not on my list of recommended reading. There is so much out there which is far better. Try Richard Holmes on Coleridge for example.
So there you go. Sorry to be so horrible. I’ve even spoiled my own evening.