- Here’s a very good book you would probably […] I was going to say ‘enjoy’ but that’s only half the right word - It is enjoyable - funny in places, just beautifully written in others. But it does start with poverty and intergenerational shame and does also end (nearly) with a vividly described schizophrenic episode. It is the most enjoyable literary encounter I have had with either of those things.
- Intentionally or not - it’s also well-timed - Scottish literature at the mo - and realistically for quite a while now - is practically defined by a particular type of story: 70s, council estate, escape, return - whether fiction (Shuggie Bain for instance being a work of fiction marketed as essentially a memoir - which is ethically preferable to the reverse if nothing else), essay (Andrew O’Hagan: LRB), and autobiography (many).
Toy Fights I think is conscious of the terrain it steps out into, the literary context, and the risk of cliche. It’s a book conscious of the register in which it is a writing, willing to unpack itself as it goes along. It’s probably hard to be a good book, about the things it’s about and where they happened, without that awareness. The book explicitly draws out the tension generated by the way the market invites and encourages ham.
- Much of the book is put beautifully. For a poet, it’s more a book that’s obviously careful and aware of its language rather than something I’d describe as poetic or particularly lyrical. Actually, it frequently makes a concerted effort *not* to be these things (and when he borrows from his own poetry, he makes the quotes explicit)
- There’s a real power to the sections where I’m familiar enough with his poems to map across the correspondence - there’s a power I hadn’t appreciated in encountering something you’ve heard once, told again but fashioned differently - the early chapter outlining his father’s character and approach as an accompanist mapping closely onto a poem in last year’s collection ‘The Arctic’.
- It’s worth saying that Don Paterson - though he’s been around and active for an absolute age now, just feels to me like an increasingly major figure in British cultural life, probably to an extent we’ve not fully realised yet- This is the third different medium in which I’ve picked up a Don Paterson book and thought it was one of the best examples of the form I’d encountered (the others being Rain (poetry), and the genuinely monumental The Poem (academic monograph). The latter a £20 purchase which probably taught me more about literature than my entire degree (approximately £30k in the hole still)).
- I think this is one of the great books I’ve read about music. In part because it is really well written and frequently about music. Also in part because I think I’ve got similar taste to him (well, the good bits of my taste anyway - I love much of what he loves: free jazz, Maddy Prior, Robert Wyatt - but i also love Metallica who he apparently hates) and I find that flattering in some way.
- I think the part of this book that’ll stay with me longest is the stuff about his dad. It’s a great music book and also a great dad book, because these things are, to Paterson, kind of the same. There’s a sense in this that what he’s connecting to in the music he likes and responds to most are distinctly paternal emotional associations. I think his dad kind of *is* music to him - a sense enhanced by the note, something touched on in previous poetry, that dad’s connection to music was just about the last thing to go when dementia bit. I’ve read little in my life that touches it for sheer emotional impact.
Don Paterson writes a lot in this about people he loves or loved. The presentation of his dad in this is one of the most finely drawn portraits of love I’ve ever read - all the more impactful for the sense it has of its honesty, of not being idealised. I’d have to reach back to, I dunno, a Tomb for Anatole to find something that hit me in a way comparable.
- It’s an obviously brilliant book which, if a book is a room, comes with its own elephant. For all the book sets out, from the preface on, a hatred of social media, this book - particularly in its footnotes and asides - bares distinct traces of the extremely online.
- This is from the first few pages - I can’t blame Don Paterson for the associations and baggage we each bring to a work of art but ‘radical centrist’ is, to me, less a programme of government and more a distinct sort of person who gets into a lot of fights on twitter. This is followed - at intervals often with not particularly obvious linkages back to the accompanying text - accounts of various sorts of people Don Paterson gets into fights with on the internet (?).
- I got the impression Paterson finds comfort in mapping narcissism (something he is, for fair enough reasons, both openly afraid of and preoccupied by) as a left-right trait, a manoeuvre through which he carves out, rhetorically, an oasis in which he situates himself. Given some of what the book covers, this makes perfect emotional sense to me as a kind of form of self-defence.
- Which is all to say that - the narcissistic personality type he correctly diagnoses as existing in alt-right/‘woke’ left subcultures also absolutely exists in the self-described radical centre - the same performative victimhood finds an expression in the tweets of, e.g., your matt fordes and francis weetmans - an expression that if anything feels all the purer for its lack of a disguising political project.
- But it’s also interesting as an example of one of those funny things about politics - the labels that appeal to Paterson are loaded with associations that repel me, (much as he probably would return that favour if I tried to lay out whatever microlabels I feel suit me best) - but the actual positions and priorities he lays out in detail are all things I basically agree with him on. I guess where we probably completely diverge is that I think, 100%, that a political project that were to try to attempt to advance his priorities and expressed political preferences (which he characterises as centrist) would absolutely be pilloried in the political mainstream as extreme left, and likely subsequently totally dismantled by all the marshalled forces of the British elite (but not - crucially - by internet wokescolds, who would simply persist being annoying online).
- I think, genuinely, that Paterson has mistaken annoying or grating for, like, politically powerful or meaningful. The book keeps taking breaks from being, like, genuinely brilliant to just relitigate some shit from the internet, stuff you get the sense he was really annoyed at that day, whether it relates to what he was writing or not.
- At points, the pivots the book makes verges on shadowboxing. But it also feels like something unsurprising in a poet, which is to say some of it can be read as fuelled by a distaste for imprecision - a tendency online left discourse is undoubtedly given to. (and I do have a vague, not-very-worked-through theory that why so much online left discourse ends up in obscure cul-de-sacs or splinters is because people are generally no longer taught at schools the difference between rhetoric and literal speech, and people end up feeling a peculiar, doomed compulsion to defend or adopt rhetorical positions as though it was purely literal, factual speech. but that’s probably a conversation for another day.)
- I think why some of these asides feel frustrating is because there’s a sense that they’re incomplete. Which hooks back into the shadowboxing point - Paterson dismantles his own uncharitable reads of millennial tendencies or discourse, while doing so often implying he might be minded to say something more controversial which he then declines to set out - inviting us to imagine a comparably much stronger argument or position than he’s actually delivered.
- I accept that Paterson did not set out to write Sarah Schulman’s Conflict is Not Abuse (a book i suspect broadly matches Paterson’s position on ‘offence’ discourse) - but if I was his editor I would have probably suggested that the most spiritually enriching and mentally satisfying way to counter enraging internet discourse is just to ignore it entirely. The worst possible way to respond to stuff that annoys you online is to let it, at intervals, interrupt a book that’s about something else entirely.
- I’ve spent the majority of this write up talking about approximately half a percentage of the book - and really it’s not so much the content of the asides but the fact that they just feel jarring - so totally disconnected from a book otherwise paced carefully and effectively, and frequently at odds with what feels like the flow of the given chapter. It feels like a genuine catastrophe in the editing stage. I left chapters that were alternately heartbreaking and revelatory instead thinking about a random aside at the bottom of page 142 or whatever. Not because I was outraged, i wasnt, but because why is it there! And there again 50 pages later!
- Returning to Schulman actually - I started speculating - appreciating I will never know - that’s potentially why Paterson seems to feel this stuff with an intensity not explained by the surrounding text is because of his background as an academic professional - Schulman’s ‘Conflict’ is most convincing and feels best observed in the parts where it focuses on the challenges of particular trends in ‘offence’ discourse in academic contexts. (See also Mark Fisher).
- I’ve talked way to much about these asides but I genuinely found them compelling (again, not because of what they say but just because they’re there at all).
- I’m just writing this up because I found it interesting. I don’t really know what to rate this book. Maybe 5 stars! It is an intensely moving book. I hope there’s a second volume which, now (as in, then) he’s in London, may explain why he comes off as mildly preoccupied with a certain ‘type’ that generally do not feature in the book but presumably loom(ed) large in future.
- If there is a future edition, collecting the multiple volumes I hope are coming, I’d suspect some of the footnotes would be quietly dropped. For a book that says ‘future classic’ on its dustjacket, it’s just strange and a shame that it fairly frequently seems to tie itself to considerations, unconvincingly drawn, occasionally bizarrely ungenerous, and for no pay off, and that really will date, fast.
*(really minor sidenote: I also take issue with one of these footnotes purely on a matter of fact. Corbyn didn’t lose because he alienated the working class - he (briefly) made Labour membership more working class (and got 40% of the vote in 2017). The very common media projection of Corbynism as a middle-class phenomena really is not born out by data. IMO he lost because his project, around mid 2018 buckled under the strain and simply gave up attempting to impose any discipline (or just recognised they had no means to). The game was over long before December 2019 - he could have won a majority of 50 that night and still wouldn’t have lasted the year in office (even without covid). It was that and he got walked into an electorally toxic position on Brexit (reversing his 2017 position, which was the only electorally viable stance). Corbynism is obviously a case study in political failure but the hows and whys of it are generally are frequently totally misunderstood.)