There’s a scene near the end of Peter Polites’ novel The Pillars where Pano, the protagonist, watches someone he knows secretively unload asbestos from a rented shed into the back of his ute. This person has done dodgy shit before: earlier in the novel, two young women jump to their deaths from an apartment tower he developed; it was on fire because he’d skirted local zoning laws and had it built without fire escape infrastructure. So, both we and Pano know that he’s a rapacious piece of shit who cares about nothing besides making a quick buck. Anyway, when he’s discovered moving the asbestos, the two angrily confront each other; there’s yelling and red faces and thrown sunglasses and fists scrunched up at the tops of shirts. But eventually the macho property developer is completely deflated when Pano calmly makes it clear that the developer is being blackmailed. Until that moment, Mr. Property Developer had basically been a toxic masculine scapegoat; and it is only then, at the tail-end of the novel, that he transforms from a caricature into a three-dimensional human being. He is broken, afraid, despairing, regretful, overwhelmed, resentful, angry. To me, it was the first moment when this book became something more than a haphazard collection of observations about suburban life, like a Seinfeld routine that wasn’t funny; this was the moment when the book became a novel, something I’d be comfortable to call a work of art. Finally, there were things at stake! Finally, there was some dramatic tension! It looked as though people might get fucked up, and that they might fuck up other people in their turn, and that the past, present, and future might coalesce into a narrative where personalities evolve and where acts have consequences. But, alas, that moment was short-lived. Mr Developer doesn’t develop any further; indeed, he’s eclipsed almost immediately by Pano’s inexplicable transformation into a blackmailing villain, which comes out of absolutely nowhere and which is not foreshadowed or presaged in any way. It was here that I finally stopped giving this book the benefit of the doubt and admitted what I’d refused to admit for most of the book: this novel sucks.
The protagonist of the novel is Pano, a gay man, presumably in his mid-30s, who earns minimum wage as a freelance author and who lives with his landlord and occasional lover, Kane, in his house in the suburbs of Sydney. Pano, like all poor intellectuals, is resentful of both his poverty and of those people in his life who, though richer than him, are less culturally literate. He may be poor, but at least in this one way he’s got a leg up on those uncultured neanderthals. It’s a tad ironic that someone so obsessed with marginalised identities others almost everyone he meets. The objects of his complex affection are landlords, property developers, and sugar mummas, that is, the winners in contemporary Australian society, and those who are directly supported by them; and his sole method of analysing and understanding these people is through a sort of unconscious semiotics of their material possessions. This is how he others people, by treating people as objects composed of other objects, and by preferring to analyse their surface features, their components, to getting to know them as people. To Pano, every item of clothing and furniture, every tattoo, every makeup article, signifies something deep and meaningful about that person, their ethnicity, sexuality, socioeconomic status, or their politics.
Now, I don't think this kind of semiotics is useless. I’ve read Roland Barthes’ Mythologies multiple times and I found it to be original and full of genuine insights. But Barthes was a bona fide intellectual, and a French intellectual no less, who are notorious for sloppy thinking; Barthes made his daily bread by thinking about trivial things in depth; as a public intellectual, he was rewarded based on how much intellectual content he produced, so he had very real incentives to think about this stuff as though it was the whole of his life. Because it sort of was. But that is not the case for our protagonist. His endless consumption of surfaces betrays a pathological self-consciousness and a kind of narcissism. When he meets a girl with long, fake hair, he asks himself, what does that hair mean? Only, he doesn’t ask actually ask her this, the one person who is probably better suited than anyone else to answer this question about their innermost nature. No, he keeps it all in his head. He notes things about people, and infers what those things mean, but he’s almost never genuinely curious enough to engage with those people as though they’re his equals, as though they might be able to enlighten him as much as he imagines he enlightens himself. Human souls are nothing but shiny mirrors.
This is because Pano’s obsession with surfaces makes him incapable of meaningful introspection, the kind that moves beyond mere observation to the asking of questions about those observations. For me, what’s most frustrating about this is that he never passes any kind of moral judgement or has very strong reactions to anything. Even when he gets beat up, he just takes it, and doesn’t dwell on it, and the episode doesn’t affect anything further down the line or shed light on things that’ve already happened. Like tattoos, his observations, even his observations of despicable things, are all surface, no depth. They don’t go anywhere; they don’t penetrate into deeper, darker, more profound contemplations. He just doesn’t seem very human to me. He’s like Albert Camus’s Meursault from The Stranger, only stripped of that novel's rich philosophical undertones and left only with Meursault’s blank and unfathomable lifelessness. This means that when Pano/Peter Polites does pass judgement on something, it’s normally experienced by the reader as a non-sequitur, as something said in passing, disconnected from what’s happening around it. For example, Pano doesn’t stop his friend from “testing” a questionable batch of meth on a total stranger, but later he has the gall to pass judgement when mothers shield their kids’ eyes from that psychotic stranger’s penis. It’s presented as some kind of anti-capitalist critique, as though capitalist society has warped people’s priorities and made them care about the wrong things, but neither Pano nor his companions in that scene had been discussing such things, and the theme isn’t picked up later or developed in any way. It just deepens the sense that Polites didn’t write him well, that’s he unreal, that he’s missing something.
All of this would be fine if conveying a sense of the moral shallowness of things was the main point, or one of the main points, of the novel. But it’s not. I never once got the impression that The Pillars was intended by the author to be a portrait of moral degeneration, nor a portrait of ordinary humans made degenerate by an inhuman society, nor even of morally complex humans who try their darndest despite their failings to navigate a messy world. Rather, it seemed pretty obvious to me that this was an exploration of various forms of identity, although primarily of ethnic, sexual, and socioeconomic identities, and of the ways they intersect. He’s a gay man and the son of a first-generation immigrant, so he pays special attention to how ethnic men experience their homosexuality. These observations are often tragic: Middle Eastern men in particular seem to have a very conflicted relationship with their sexuality, and Pano has no end of fun observing the tragicomic ways they express (or don’t express) themselves. These observations were without doubt the best part of the book; they were sometimes genuinely insightful and revealing, and on account of them I feel like I know a bit more about what it means to be a gay man. More interesting for me, though, as an Aussie, was that this book made me feel like I know a bit more about what it means to be Australian. I forget who it was exactly, I think it might’ve been John Cleese, but I remember hearing an economist talk about the one thing they didn’t miss about being in Australia, which is that no matter where they are or what they’re doing, Australians always talk about property. It’s our national obsession. There are reasons why this is the case, but taken collectively, all of these reasons mean that Australians treat homeownership and property investment as the surest path wealth. With this in mind, the protagonist’s evil turn at the very end of the book, which comes out of nowhere and makes no sense, becomes at least somewhat understandable. But this specific cultural understanding isn’t baked into the book; you have to either be an Aussie or intimately know one to get why this makes some kind of sense. But, as stated before, if Pano ever has anything bad to say about the state of things, it’s always about the abstract networks of power, money, and desire that in his mind explain why people act a certain way, that make them express their identities in a certain way. Not a single individual is ever condemned or reprimanded. No, it’s society that’s the villain. Evil isn’t buying houses for cheap after filling their roofs with asbestos; evil isn’t teenagers bashing homosexuals; evil isn’t testing dirty hard drugs on unsuspecting strangers; evil isn’t property developers building death traps; no, evil is zoning regulations, urban sprawl, getting tribal tattoos without having any awareness of their cultural significance, mums protecting their prepubescent kids from adult nudity.
For all the reasons aforementioned, the overwhelming impression I got from this novel was of impotence and malaise. Pano is unable or unwilling to change, to exert any kind of effort to live a life that doesn’t depress him; he is unable even to tell someone that what they’re doing is wrong, although he’s given plenty of chances to do so. His only ambition, and it seems the only ambition of every other person in his life, is to acquire money, property, and material possessions, such as luxury furniture and branded clothes. Early in the novel, the building of a mosque is protested because of its potential to depress local property values. Pano knows that this is why it’s being protested, and yet he goes along with it without raising any objections. Then, when the protest is successful, and when his landlord therefore declares victory and sells his house for a premium, Pano is shocked and betrayed, as though nothing whatsoever had been wrong about the events that had led up to that point. And what’s worse is that this doesn’t trigger any self-reflection. He’s forced to admit that his landlord-lover, Kane, is probably a sociopath, or at least that Kane never loved him, and that their entire relationship had been transactional and devoid of anything resembling even platonic love. But his shock and horror doesn’t make him think to himself, you know what, perhaps I was wrong to have helped Kane do this. Perhaps I’m not only a fool for helping Kane, who doesn’t love me after all and, if I’m honest with myself, never did, but I’m also an asshole for joining in this mission in the first place. It was wrong to destroy this community project simply to try to enrich myself. Pano doesn’t doubt himself; he doesn’t doubt, resolve to change, and grow. There is zero—zero—character development, even though the author’s given him an excellent prompt.
I could go on. Although I dislike this book, I think it says a lot about what it means to be (a particular and common kind of) Australian, and for that reason alone I have lots to say about The Pillars. But that’s in large part due to me reading things into the book, and less to do with the book consciously and deliberately dealing with contemporary social matters with any kind of seriousness and depth. He’s no Houellebecq, with a deep and sincere drive to understand the broader sociological trends of where he lives. He’s observant in the way that a narcissist is observant, that is, about only his immediate surrounds, and he’s revealing only because everyone he encounters appears to be a lot like him, in other words, superficial, amoral, and money-hungry. His endless status signalling, the narcissism that saw him seesaw between feelings of (cultural) superiority and (financial) inferiority, and his obsession with systemic social issues yet indifference to the grossly immoral acts that happen right before his very eyes, painted a grotesque picture of a moral failure, which in my eyes makes him somewhat subhuman. He is literally the kind of hypocrite who denounces capitalism yet pounces on an opportunity—a conventionally, straightforwardly immoral opportunity, one that might put his own mentally ill mum at risk of severe health complications—to become rich and to profit from the very same system that he claims to hate.
In the end, The Pillars a bad novel: it’s repetitive, its characterisation sucks, there’s no sense of narrative development. But it’s also, for all its flaws, an interesting depiction of the way people actually live and experience the world, right here, right now. This book is ugly, trashy, true. And only because I'm an Aussie, I might reread it for that reason alone.