Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Not Even Close

It seems to me that there is almost no chance that North American readers will cotton to Close (Grand Central), UK megaseller Martina Cole’s official U.S. debut. It’s not that Close is bad. In fact, it isn’t. It’s just very, very different.

On this side of the pond, we are used to a certain amount of polish and finish. If we encounter a run-on sentence or a dropped semicolon, we head to a writing forum and bemoan the fact that editors no longer edit. We have a certain--I’ll just say it--expectation of gloss. It was one of the things that struck me last year about the much ballyhooed The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. I remember thinking that book would never have been published in the United States as it was. There were raw edges, sometimes odd jumps. The book was artful--late author Stieg Larsson was a journalist, after all. But I think a lot of what was good and raw about that book would have been sanded away if it had been published first in the United States.

Now, don’t misunderstand: this is absolutely not meant to be a comparison of the work of Larsson and Cole. In fact, I feel safe in saying there is no planet on which these two should be considered comparable books. Neither of them are American books, certainly. But in very different ways. In fact, were I to compare Cole’s work in Close with anyone at all it would be the films of Guy Ritchie. I wouldn’t even be surprised if someone were to tell me that Ritchie is a fan of Cole’s and admires her work. There is the same sort of breathless abandon in Close that there is in, say, Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels. The same sort of gritty hyper-reality. The England of both Ritchie and Cole has less in common with Austen and Eliot than it does with--just say--the moon. Inhale deeply on a summer Saturday evening and you will not smell the English countryside. No flowers, no forest, nothing growing at all. Instead you’ll get the slightly rancid hit from the dodgy chip shop down the way and the pong of the cheap perfume worn by the scantily clad young tarts who are still desperately trying to meet the young men who will ruin their lives.

For both Ritchie and Cole, the London underworld is culture as well as community. Sure, there are cops ... somewhere. But, mostly, law enforcement doesn’t figure in: more occasional nuisance--and perhaps plot device--than any real threat.

On-screen, however, the lack of cohesion in a Ritchie film comes off as artful, whereas in Close, it sometimes just seems like a mess. I spent a lot of time going backwards, especially at first, before I caught Cole’s rhythm. She jumps us ruthlessly and relentlessly from scene to scene. Quite often the jumps seem pointless. There is no sense of bringing readers carefully to one place so they can then savor the next. Rather, you feel as though Cole simply had enough talking about that bit, and wanted to move onto something else.

Cole is not a writer’s writer. There is little craftsmanship in what she does here and in some ways, that isn’t a criticism. As she moves us through the misspent lives and careers of the Brodie family and those whose lives touch theirs, she spends more time belaboring the contents of their skulls than she ever does the exciting ways in which those contents are sometimes released. If you’ve ever heard that writers should show a thing, not tell it, and you wanted to know exactly what was meant, read Close: I’ve never been told so much all in one go.

All of that said, one never doubts that Cole knows her stuff and, for whatever reason, she seems to understand this world. More importantly for the reader: despite all the things she does “wrong,” Close is a very tough book to put down. Cole is, after all, one of the United Kingdom’s top-selling authors and all 15 of her books to date have been bestsellers. A television adaptation of an earlier novel, The Take, made headlines in the UK earlier this month. With that kind of success, it’s clear Cole is doing something right. I’m just not sure North American audiences will be able to see past Cole’s ham-fisted prose in order to glean what those things are.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have not read Close, but I have read Stieg Larsson's two (so far) published books in English, and I've read some earlier Martina Cole novels (as I live in England). I know exactly what you mean. Both the earlier Cole novels, and the Larsson novels, are books that still needed editing when they were published. In the case of Larsson, there may have been issues because the author died before the books were translated. But it is all too frequent in the UK that one reads books whose editing is incomplete. I have to say, though, that the same can be true for mass market fiction in the US. For example, I think James Patterson could benefit from better editing (not that I have read any of his for a good few years now!). But there is a big difference between the care of his earlier, rather exciting and good thrillers, and the casual efforts that are put out now. (The last Patterson I read was about 3 years ago.)

Gordon Harries said...

Obviously, one doesn’t want to be prickly about this… but it’s worth noting that Martina Cole isn’t representative of British crime fiction. (in fact, there are currently so many divergent threads running through BritCrime it would be hard to suggest anything that is representative.)

But if you were to be looking for polish then Denise Mina, Charles Cumming, Laura Wilson and Allan Guthrie would qualify, at least to my mind. (and those are the examples I can see from my desk!)

Not that I wish to criticize the article, of course..

Gordon.

Linda L. Richards said...

Oh for crying out loud! This piece was not meant as a slight on British crime fiction or its polish. That's not even hinted at. Nor do I require a primer on same. I'm talking about this book, full stop. Gordon, have you read Close? I suspect not. If you had, you would know that, if anything, it's an insult to the overediting common in the U.S., not the sparse editing sometimes enjoyed by writers in the U.K.

Two words: Irvine Walsh. Though I would not compare Walsh and Cole, I'm confident neither author would have been developed in the U.S. where words are often smoothed to the point of homogenization, or so it seems to me.

Polish, in the context of this piece, is not a good thing. So examples of same likely run counter to your aim.

I may not have particularly liked Close but I love the fact that Cole's huge fanbase get to hear her unique voice.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure it's specifically about a difference in the American and British markets that perpetuates this difference in "polish", but a difference in the markets that read the books concerned. Certain British crime readers would be up in arms with the unpolished nature of Cole's books (I can't stand them, myself), and I'm also sure that there are certain American readers who wouldn't care about an unpolished book in the slightest... I definitely think Cole could have a market in the US, and be very sucessful, someone clever in marketing just needs to figure out where exactly to point the cannon.

Anonymous said...

oh, and as for James Patterson, The Thomas Berryman Number is one of the worst written and edited books in crime fiction history, and yet it won the Edgar, so obviously someone in the US loved it! (And, of course, British committees have picked their stinkers too. Ben Elton's Popcorn, for example (though a stinker for different reasons)...)