Lars Iyer, ‘Spurious’ – a review

Lars Iyer (photo from Bomblog website)

Lars Iyer (photo from Bomblog website)

Lars Iyer, Spurious  (Melville House, New York: 2011) paperback, 188 pages.

I bought and read this book in response to glowing reviews by people I respect like John Self (on his Asylum book blog) and Sam Jordison at the Guardian (‘a brilliant, engaging read’).  Although I’m mostly in accord with their positive views, I finished it with decreasing enthusiasm and, by the end, a fair amount of…well, boredom.

It’s certainly an engaging, curious and highly individual work.  It doesn’t conform to most of the conventions of a novel: there’s little plot to speak of – the spread and growth of damp and spores in Lars’ flat, perhaps, and occasional gin-fuelled dérives with his pal W., perhaps (there are several in jokes about the Situationists; many more – too many – about other philosophical, literary figures).  The largest part of the book consists of raucous dialogues between the character called Lars, who like his namesake the author lives and teaches in the NE of England (Iyer is a lecturer in philosophy at the University of Newcastle), and his ‘frenemy’, the acerbic W. – we never learn his full name.  W. lives in Plymouth where he seems also to have a fitfully rewarding academic career.  These dialogues are almost entirely narrated as reported speech by the impassive Lars:

I am something to explain, W. says.  He has to account for me to everyone.  Why is that?  I don’t feel I have to account for myself, W. says, that’s what it is.  I’ve no real sense of shame.  It must be something to do with my Hinduism, W. muses.

This appears on the first page, and typifies the oblique style and muted, absurdist tone.  Most of what W. says to Lars, as reported by Lars, anyway – he’s not the most reliable of narrators – is cruelly insulting.  He frequently singles out Lars’ stupidity, obesity and all-round uselessness; this is apparent from page 1, just a few lines on from my previous quotation:

‘You’re an ancient people, but an innocent one, unburdened by shame’, W. says.  On the other hand, it could simply be due to my stupidity.  I’m freer than him, W. acknowledges, but more stupid.  It’s an innocent kind of stupidity, but it’s stupidity nonetheless.

This kind of love-hate relationship with its banter, this deadpan, relentless insulting (which is usually placidly accepted by Lars) has been likened by most critics to the clownish antics of Vladimir and Estragon in Samuel Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot.

Samuel Beckett (photo: Wiki Commons)Samuel Beckett (photo: Wiki Commons)

Iyer himself, in an article in the Guardian in 2012, acknowledged his debt to Nietzsche, quoting his statement: ‘In your friend you should have your best enemy’.  Such a friend, Iyer continues, should be one who ‘badgers, bothers, enrages, and insults you’, and he claims to detest the blandly spurious ‘kidult’ friendship promoted on platforms such as Facebook.  And that probably explains this book’s title.

There are nine other literary pairs of ‘frenemies’ that Iyer identifies in that article (in addition to Vladimir and Estragon); all are clear influences on Spurious – here are some of them:

Don Quixote and his ‘comic foil’ Sancho Panza.

Don Quixote and Sancha Panza: picture from Wiki Commons, from an engraving by Gustave Doré, 1863

Don Quixote and Sancha Panza: picture from Wiki Commons, from an engraving by Gustave Doré, 1863

In the Austrian author Thomas Bernhard’s 1983 novel The Loser the pianist prodigy Glenn Gould sends his less gifted fellow music student Bertheimer into a downward spiral of misery ending in suicide after Gould labels him a ‘loser’, and plays with inimitable virtuoso skill.

Thomas Mann’s Settembrini and Naphta in The Magic Mountain, ‘the former embodying the positive, hopeful ideal of the Enlightenment, and the latter, the more chaotic, order-threatening aspects of fascism, anarchism and communism. The two men debate furiously, and end up fighting an improbable duel, foreshadowing the coming clash of ideologies that would tear the continent apart.’

The cutting, nihilistic sharpness of W.’s invective is mildly amusing for a while: ‘You always have administration to fall back on’, W. says. ‘You never really experience your failure’.  The back-handed compliment is compounded in the next sentence: ‘With neither a fear of unemployment nor a fearful skill as an administrator, W. is alone with his failure, he says.  It’s terrible – there’s no alibi, he can’t blame it on anyone’.  After this uncharacteristic, Kafka-esque flash of self-criticism W. returns to his usual theme: ‘You’re like the dog that licks the hand of its master.  You’ll be licking their hand even as they beat you, and making little whiny noises.  You’re good at that, aren’t you – making whiny noises?’

Nearly 200 pages of such pessimistic, one-sided badinage has limited appeal for me:

We were disgusted with ourselves.  We were mired in self-disgust, our whole circle.  We hung our heads.  If we could have hung ourselves at that moment, we would have done so.

Yes, it’s inventive, clever, thought-provoking and idiosyncratic.  Look at the whimsically studied development there from ‘hung our heads’ to ‘hung ourselves’, and the other patterned repetitions here and in much of the dialogue, presented (as in the quotation above) in staccato bursts of short sentences or paratactic, loosely linked sentences of greater lengthy.  But I think it’s just too damn up itself to be fully successful in literary terms.  It’s an intelligent curiosity, well worth reading, but ultimately sounds too few notes too frequently.  Its origins as a blog are also apparent: it’s got an episodic, non-linear structure, and lapses too often into repetition.

The most interesting aspect of the text for me was the more profound, less quirky forays into philosophical debate, presented with the bleak wit of Lars and W.’s literary hero, Kafka, and their cinematic hero, the Hungarian Bela Tarr:

Of course, I should take my life immediately, that would be the honourable thing, W. says.  I should climb the footstool to the noose…But it would already be too late, that’s the problem, W. says.  The sin has already been committed.  The sin against existence, against the whole order of existing things.

Franz Kafka (1883-1924); photo - Wiki Commons

Franz Kafka (1883-1924); photo – Wiki Commons

Iyer is to be congratulated for producing such a daring attempt at a shaggy-dog story based on the principle of turning apocalyptic-messianic pseudo-philosophical musings by a pair of smug, self-styled idiots into Nietzschean, angst-ridden comedy:

We know we’re failures, we know we’ll never achieve anything, but we’re still joyful.

Iyer’s competitive chums are capable of beautiful lyric episodes:

We’re only signs or syndromes of some great collapse, and our deaths will be no more significant than those of summer flies in empty rooms.

There are some genuinely funny (but weird, absurd) passages, like this one, where W. has been viciously berating Lars for not reading the chapters he’d sent him for comment:

‘You didn’t read chapter five’, says W., ‘with the dog’.  He was very proud of his pages on his dog, even though he doesn’t own a dog.  ‘You should always include a dog in your books’, says W.  It’s a bit like his imaginary children in his previous book, W. says. – ‘Do you remember the passages on children?’  Even W. wept.  He weeps now to think of them.  He’s very moved by his own imaginary examples, he says.

He wants to work a nun into his next book, he says.  An imaginary nun, the kindest and most gentle person in the world.

It’s for sentences like these that I think Spurious is worth a look; but be prepared for some longueurs and donnish, highbrow namedropping among the comical repetitions.

 

Typically enigmatic cover image of 'Spurious'; photo from the Guardian website

Typically enigmatic cover image of ‘Spurious’; photo from the Guardian website

 

Share on Facebook and Twitter

6 thoughts on “Lars Iyer, ‘Spurious’ – a review

  1. Hi Simon,

    Enjoyed your review more, I suspect, than I would enjoy the book. I especially liked your warning to prepare for “longueurs and donnish, highbrow namedropping among the comical repetitions.” That phrase is the quintessence of England (or at least the England of my imagination). I wonder if “Spurious” would have been more effective as a very tight story, novella, or short play ( more a “comedy of manners”). A full novel may not have been a good fit… what do you think?

    By coincidence, during my visit to see my family, my mother and I were talking about “frenemies”… she lives in an independent living village where she and my father have the option to go and eat in the dining room or in their apartment. She had a “frenemy” named Mary Jane, who got my mother kicked off her spot of leading the National Anthem and reading the morning poem at breakfast. My mother had to stop playing Scrabble with Mary Jean, who got mad when she always lost! We also remembered that when my niece Shannon was 3, she had a “frenemy” at her nursery school who used to call her a “baby.”

    I guess frenemies are everywhere! 

    • Glad you liked the piece, Maureen. Maybe you’re right about ‘Spurious’ not being quite the right ‘fit’ for a novel – but as I’ve indicated, it started life as a blog, which is maybe where it sits most comfortably. I did find it a little repetitious, even though I know that’s part of Iyers’ point about the absurd tedium of the existence of his characters. Just think it’s more fun for him and his pals than for the rest of us. I don’t really care for the coinage ‘frenemy’, but can think of plenty of examples; my mother-in-law has several…

  2. Could not resist coming back just once more. Your observation “[j]ust think it’s more fun for him and his pals than for the rest of us” is very ponderable. Is this a matter of rigor and ability to be tough on oneself when editing? Is it self-knowledge. I’m sure dancing was not “fun” for Fred Astaire, but it was for the audience. I’m still trying to figure this idea out but you sure know these kind of “fun for them but not the audience” when you see them.

    Final circle back to link these to “frenemies” even though you don’t care for term. I remember being frozen out of the office Christmas murder mystery dinner production by someone who didn’t want me involved (someone told her I had written several mystery manuscripts). When her clique put on the play, it was a very generic, English-mansion-in-a-storm things, based on “Clue.” The lead writer gave herself the best part (as a slightly mutton-dressed-as-lamb “Miss Diamond”), gave all the partners other juicy parts, and the thing went on and on. No one could hear the lines, and no one could figure out the plot. But they sure looked like they were having fun. On the one hand, it was frustrating because I had imagined an original mystery based on the people in our office that could have been awesome, but on the other hand, it saved me a lot of work!

    • Isn’t it funny how people behave like that? An interesting example, thanks. As for the rigorous editing: some of the structural features, the looseness, repetitions, are perhaps a consequence of the mode of production as a blog initially.

Leave a Reply to Simon Lavery Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *