When I read the New York Review Books edition of Raymond Queneau's WITCH GRASS in October of 2016 I was utterly taken aback. I thought it to be perhaps the greatest debut novel I had ever read, better than the two subsequent Queneau novels I had tallied-up by that point, and marveled that I so rarely hear or see it discussed, as though my assessment were anything but the consensus. I have now read six Queneau novels, and I still think WITCH GRASS is my favourite. It is a novel that not only presages the Oulipo group, the nouvelle roman, and postmodern fiction of every stripe, but that looks forward to the wild imagination, linguistic pyrotechnics, philosophical dynamism, and fiercely critical sensibility I associate with Queneau's later works more than those that more immediately followed his debut. ODILE, for example, is a very different beast than is WITCH GRASS, whereas THE BLUE FLOWERS, his penultimate novel and personal favourite from among his own works, strikes me as fundamentally conterminous with it. Though ODILE is far less experimental and ambitious than WITCH GRASS, it is nevertheless pretty astonishing. One suspects that it was written with comparatively commercial aspirations; while there might well be reason to carp about this, I think most will ultimately be won over by the material on its own terms, as was I. ODILE is essentially a roman a roman à clef that deals, through first-person narration, with Queneau's actual experiences having returned to Paris from military service in Morocco in 1926. Queneau is refigured as Roland Travay, a fairly laid-back quasi-antisocial layabout with math on the mind who becomes embroiled with communists, thugs, and most of all a fictional version of the Surrealists (whose dictatorial overseer André Breton becomes Anglarès within the pages of the novel), while at the same time slowly coming to terms with a self-defeating intellectual blockage manifesting itself as a kind of amorous neurosis. Readers in large part familiar with Queneau's biography will quickly become aware of the fact that the novel pretty liberally reimagines many of the specifics. In the novel, Travay was born in Paris, whereas Queneau was born and raised in Le Havre. Queneau's real life wife was André Breton's sister-in-law, whereas the eponymous Odile, her literary counterpart, is part of a microcommunity entirely peripheral to Anglarès'. Queneau's alteration of facts and periodic skewing of background seems to be coupled, especially at first, with something like an effort to construct an exaggerated (even perhaps genuinely misleading) conceptual persona. Queneau represents himself as kind of blithely sophisticated, hardboiled, and difficult to faze. In reading ODILE, we may be inclined on occasion to think of the mythic self-construction of modernist writers like Henry Miller and Jean Genet. I beseech you to look at the following three sentences: "We said good-bye. I watched her ass vanish into the distance. It vanished." My word! What are we to make of this? Very Henry Miller. I find it hard to imagine that Queneau was a fellow especially inclined to make note to himself of a lady departing in such a manner, heh heh, but, hell, what do I know? If a species of feeble toughness, hardheadedness, and dearth of empathy make Roland Travy less than sympathetic, especially at first, and if it would indeed render entirely reasonable accusations of mysogyny (there is also a little homophobia going on), not only does this speak to the less-than-evolved sensibilities of the era being represented, but also cleverly sets the stage for the character's elevation to a higher level of mindfulness late in the book (making ODILE something not unlike Bildungsroman). Perhaps the most amusing element in the book's construction of a conceptual persona comes right at the very beginning, when the narrator tells us that he literally has no memories of his youth -- that his memories only commence in Morocco, those of a man already in his early twenties. What an amusing thing to wish people to imagine true of you! As much of the book is ironic nearly to the point of being outright parodic, it is hard not to see Queneau as also a writer here intent on having some fun taking himself down a peg. The fragility of his own construction, perhaps even its self-conscious flimsiness, is addressed outright: "Of myself as I was then," he writes, "I have retained only the image of a fairground toy, the mediocre slow-motion demonstration of reality that escaped me then." The way the bulk of the irony (almost at times venomous) is deployed in the novel occasionally results in something that becomes polemic-by-other-means; such business can be a tricky business indeed, but here I mean that in the best way possible. Queneau is ruthless in his treatment of Breton (in the form of Anglarès), the Surrealists, and the sundry increasingly-fanatical radicals who traipse through Paris making a complete goddamn mess, stabbing one another in the back, and never missing a chance to bicker over one ill-advised, callow course of action after another. Queneau disavows his old friends and makes an exemplary, detailed case for having so done. The problem is surely not with this particular misguided cadre of friends in particular. It is the ubiquity of “intergroup politicking” that Queneau most disdains, and, hey, yeah, I'm with you, Ray. I grew up in love with radical politics and combative artistic avant-gardes, but had to concede at a certain point the soundness of the criticism that I, like artists and committed thinkers in general, am a kind of bourgeois individualist. Though I am a kind of anarchist I have to concede that I am equally something of a solitary aristocrat, even if not really belonging anywhere, constructing my own periphery, populated only by myself. Queneau obviously came out on the side of the solitary creative pursuit. I find it to his credit, and he makes a gangbusters case for it. The comedy of his critique is occasionally truly delicious. Anglarès and his fellow travelers are obsessed with the "infrapsychic" (delightful word) and competing incoherent regimes of dialectical materialism. Travay, as stated, in obsessed with math. He speaks lovingly of Plato and comes off as something of a Kantian. Mathematics are hardly de rigueur in the literary novel (though they underpin all Queneau would go on to do, even if primarily at a formal-structural level). Rarer still are literary elaborations of mathematical ideas and principles. Queneau goes there in ODILE. Travay goes on about math in a number of fascinating passages. He extemporizes on “research on what I called the induction of infinite sequences and Parseval’s integrals, on what I defined as right addition and left addition with complex numbers and the importance of these operations for combinatorial topology.” Is not "combinatorial topology" a concept which would seem to get to the heart of Queneau's entire body of work? If much of ODILE is ironic, especially from the standpoint of the critique it mounts, is arrives at a place of profound and revelatory earnestness. I spoke of a self-defeating intellectual blockage manifesting itself as a kind of amorous neurosis. It is by way of Travay's late extrication from his neural entanglement that the book reaches extraordinary heights. Is is by virtue of becoming a love story? By consecrating monogamous amorous coupling? Yes and no. You see, I was a little worried about this. I myself had many lovers when I was young, a pair of whom I was bound to lengthily in implicitly committed relationships, but I have become a very self-satisfied Thomas Merton-type, prone to exalting my solitary mode of being, so I am hardly the audience for novels about wayward men saved by the love of a good woman. Also: should go without saying that I am more interested in Quneau's art than in his domestic situation, no matter how merry it may be. I think part of the genius here is that the self-defeating intellectual blockage endured by Roland Travay is born precisely of a self-destructive compulsion to have the novel he is living NOT be a love story. At, like, any cost, no matter how steep. He resists such an outcome to the point of something not unlike madness. At a certain point the reader almost wants to shake him by the collar and demand he get a grip. Until he relents. The amorous component of the novel, whereby Travay allows himself to love Odile, eventuating a provisional resolution, manifests itself in the form of a legitimate spiritual awakening (with multiple contingent components). This is its power; a spiritual power. That I can get behind. The construction of the novel is exquisite and lends itself to a palpable sense of breakthrough. The final pages are an utter triumph, masterpiece stuff, but the structure has been engineered to accommodate it. There is perhaps a central image in ODILE. It comes at the beginning, coincides with our narrator being born to awareness (and the belated ability to make memories), and returns numerous times throughout the book, marking shifts in bearing and momentary immersion in the potential richness, the hallowed mystery, of life. The image is of a contemplative, anonymous Arab man standing impassively on the road between Bou Jeloud and Bab Fetouh gazing upon something unknown. It is an image possessing talismanic properties. I shall take it with me.