Something to Tell You by Hanif Kureishi

December 2011

Six of us present to discuss Hanif Kureishi's 'Something to Tell You' (eventually, after Mark negotiated his pass-out from a family event and Chris B cycled over the hills to Wellow). Absent were Richard, Mark Th., and Neil.

With the exception of Mark T. who rather enjoyed the book, 'Something to Tell You' didn't really work for anyone - though a number of people (Steve, Chris B., Rob and Richard via email from India) acknowledged that they quite enjoyed reading it but, as Richard noted, the whole was less than the sum of the parts. It was a good evening for eloquent summaries of how we felt. Steve probably won the prize for the two best ones by describing the book as being like an evening in the pub with an irritating friend - interesting and rewarding in patches but ultimately not what it could be. (His second will-turned phrase concludes this write-up so you'll have to wait for that). 

There was general agreement (in the pub, as Neil's email somewhat begged to differ) that Kureshi was a clever and good writer. The words flowed well (though opinion varied as to whether that was in a cogent or somewhat anarchic manner), and most agreed that the book was well-laced with nice sentences or vignettes that really captured both the period it was written in and the lifestyle that most (but not all) of us recalled from that time - if not quite with the sexual and drug fuelled excesses of the characters in this novel. There were also some passages that drew particular praise - from Mark T. about the feelings of first love and from Ras about the description of discovering cancer. For balance, this note should also record Neil's horror at what he saw as dreadful writing about sex "When I did eventually come - it was hard work: I felt as if I'd shoved a heavy train through a long tunnel" (I think that was Neil quoting from the book rather than describing what he was doing whilst reading it).

Where there was a consensus was that the characters themselves failed to hold together or well described. Chris' description of them as self-satisfied smug people struck a chord, Wolf and Valentin were felt to be just unbelievable and the central character was somewhat irritating in his failure to ever get a grip on either himself or life in ways that could have helped the plot hang together (what plot?) and he certainly wasn't believable in his role as a psychoanalyst, (note to Mark Th., one reason he wasn't a believable psychiatrist is because he wasn't one. There's no greater way to offend a psychologist or psychoanalyst than by calling them a psychiatrist!).

Ah, the plot - well you see there really wasn't one - which was a major reason for Ras disliking the book so much. His enjoyment of the book increased marginally when Wolf re-appeared because the blackmail line gave him a plot-line to follow - but Chris B explained that the absence of a plot didn't matter because Something to Tell You was really just like a Jane Austen novel. General bafflement at this was dispelled when he said Austen novels are really all about how people behave and interact with one another - which is what this book was also about. Good spot.

So, the final word is given to Steve's second well-turned phrase. He said 'Something to Tell You' was like a writing version of abstract painting - "it gives a pleasing overall impression but when you look closely at the detail, it's a mess".

Scores were pretty low, averaging 4.78. Considering that five people actually said words to the effect of 'I quite liked it', it is somewhat surprising to see it languishing below such turkeys as Queen Loana and Wanted Man. Neil's dislike of sex writing has result in him losing the 2011 Mr. Easy to Please T Shirt at the last minute, which Richard narrowly beating Mark to the title (Chris B. would have won it only he was only there for the last four books thus missing out on the chance to have his score plummet by having read 'Flying Pigs'). Scores and schedule attached. There was, of course, little competition to Ras at the other end.  

We then had a brief discussion about the optional second book - What I Loved' by Siri Hustvedt, whilst avoiding a detailed discussion as only Mark and Rob had finished it. Both of them rated it very highly, whilst the three who had made a start (Chris B., Steve and Ras) were holding back judgment - with a general view of it being 'better than the Kureshi'. Chris W had yet to make a start. The only substantive discussion was about the descriptions of the art installations - which generated a Ras tirade (with support from Steve). HIs point was that they were impossible to achieve as described, whilst the others argued that this was irrelevant, as the descriptions were written as part of the creation of the character of Bill with the detail not being that important.  

The general view as that it would be good to discuss the book so, provided absent others agree, it will form a second discussion at the January meeting. (I suspect that people will either find Innocent Traitor a quick read or else give up on it if history is not their forte).

Richard's more detailed notes from India:

This was a book which was less than the sum of its parts.

There were in fact lots of positive things about it – throughout the book, there were a host of extremely interesting lines and thoughts and observations. And some of them were quite funny. I must have turned down between 30 and 50 pages where there were interesting or funny lines.   Just a few of them were:

·      “I have lived on the same page of the A-to-Z all of my adult life.”

·      (re a part of West London) “That wasn’t the ghetto; the ghetto was Belgravia, Knightsbridge and parts of Notting Hill” (and I was born and brought up near that part of west London).

·      “Isn’t it true that a person incapable of love and sex is incapable of life?”

·      “I don’t think I have ever stopped seeing London like a small boy”.

·      “Being at University in those days was a mixture of extended holiday and finishing school … I read more than I’d ever read before, and with passion that was new and surprising to me”.

·      “I was amazed by the bitterness, viciousness and cruelty of small-time politics”.

·      “These were the days before the working class were considered to be consumerist trash in cheap clothes with writing on them, when they still retained the dignity of doing essential but unpleasant work”.

·      “I like London being one of the great Muslim cities”.

And I liked a lot of his observations about psychoanalysis and psychotherapy:

·      “Like a car mechanic on his back, I work with the underneath or the understory.”

·      “People speak because there are things they don’t want to hear; they listen because there are things that they don’t want to say”.

His observations on ‘normality’ (p 82) were really interesting, as was Jamal’s interpretation of how Ajita was replicating her own mother in her behaviour to her husband and children (p 453).

But on the other hand, there were also a load of negatives.  Some of these were:

·      I did not get to know any of the characters. All of them were quite surface, and at the end of the book I did not really know them any better that when they were introduced.

·      Jamal’s reaction and then lack of development once Ajita returned to the scene seemed false to me.

·      Lots of the characters talked about thinking about deep things, but I saw no evidence of it.

·      I found all the casual-ness of the sex and the drugs and the drinking quite a turn-off – is London so decadent?  I do not think so, even in the exalted circles that these people moved in.

·      Also, I didn’t understand the 4-part structure at all!

  

So, lots of good bits but overall, not as good as it should have been.