Funny how? What’s funny about it?

I like Ian McEwan. Atonement is one of my favourite novels of the last ten years. Enduring Love has stayed with me, as has On Chesil Beach. I even enjoyed Saturday, which was given not so much a panning as a resounding “Hmm” after Atonement was loved by pretty much all the critics.

I just don’t think he’s a particularly funny guy.

Back when his Amsterdam received the Booker Prize in 1998, I remember many people saying that they were making up for not giving him the year before, for Enduring Love. Obviously Arundhati Roy’s God of Small Things was more than deserving, but there was definitely something that felt off about giving McEwan the Booker for Amsterdam – a book both slight (more a novella than a novel) and, at least in my opinion, not particularly good.

Amsterdam feels a bit like one of those Roald Dahl stories for adults – people who aren’t particularly nice getting themselves into shitty situations and digging themselves in further the more they try to extricate themselves, doing damage to themselves and to those around them who are usually as unpleasant as they are. There was even a nasty twist in the tale that felt very Dahlish. The thing was, though: Dahl’s stories, while nasty, are also funny. McEwan’s attempt at a joke felt too elaborate, overwritten, and simply not particularly amusing. It felt snide, smug and not a little self-satisfied… and essentially forgettable.

Fast forward twelve years, and it feels like McEwan’s pulled another Amsterdam – though one that dresses itself in topicality. Solar is about a physicist, ageing, fattening, roundly unpleasant but with enough of the hypocritical charm that Brits of a certain class seem to have to bed a number of fairly attractive women. For better or for worse, he ends up occupying himself with climate change and trying to make his name in the growing eco-business. Oh yes, he also frames an innocent man for murder, goes on an Arctic expedition, steals a dead man’s research and generally makes the reader – well, at least this reader – wish that he’d get eaten by a polar bear.

I’ve read articles that described Solar as “laugh-out loud funny”. A friend at work read and loved the novel. And, as I mentioned above, I generally like McEwan a lot. He’s a smart, usually subtle writer – not necessarily original, but great at his craft. But again: when McEwan aims for satirical humour, his writing falls flat for me. Solar displays his craft – McEwan can turn an elegant phrase – but it feels as smug as Amsterdam. The targets of his satire are obvious, his humour considerably less clever than it seems to consider itself; there’s an unpleasant feeling of the novel going, “Did you see that? Wasn’t that funny? Wasn’t that clever?” Solar is neither sharp and nasty enough to be good satire, to my mind, nor does it have an interesting plot or characters to keep me going. I finished it, of course, since a novel almost has to throw up all over my Criterion DVDs to make me put it aside without finishing it, but this overlong, heavy-handed, one-note joke of a novel overstayed its welcome roughly 20 pages in. Perhaps I don’t have enough of a sense of humour, or perhaps I should avoid Mr McEwan’s humoristic writing like the plague, but one Amsterdam was enough for me… and at least that one was only about a third of Solar‘s length.

On the more positive side, though: I recently re-read Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Unconsoled and didn’t like it any more the second time around – but I’m warming a lot more to his Never Let Me Go. Part of me wishes I’d been able to read it unspoiled, but even knowing what I do about the novel’s plot I’m enjoying it a lot, much more than either some of Ishiguro’s earlier work or McEwan’s attempts at amusing me. Here’s hoping that this doesn’t mean my next read afterwards has to be another failure!

P.S.: I wasn’t amused to find the old, worn out crisp/biscuit-eating anecdote in Solar, but I did like the meta-absurdity in which it’s developed in the novel – and I was happy to see Douglas Adams (R.I.P.) referenced.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Funny how? What’s funny about it?

  1. Joseph M September 28, 2011 / 2:56 pm

    Hi, Matt. I share your sentiments re: Solar here. I finished reading it last week (and emailed Fran my thoughts about it) and concluded it’s among his weaker works. Well, I’ve only read four: I can’t decide whether I like Atonement or On Chesil Beach best. And I agree that it wasn’t “laugh-out loud funny”; I thought I simply missed on the British/Western humor, so I’m relieved to read that we share the same opinion on that.

    Still, Ian McEwan remains to be my favorite author alive and Solar was not without wonderful highlights, among them the “crisp/biscuit anecdote” (which I have not read before) and the part in which Beard’s penis freezes off. I thought that was brilliant (and while I was kinda rooting for him throughout the novel — quite unlike me — I did wish for his penis to actually snap off).

    I’m also happy with your mention of Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go in this post. I wrote my ‘second’ undergraduate dissertation on that novel, so it’s close to my heart (or the other way around). For that reason I have not made an active effort to watch the movie. What did you think of it? Do you find the novel overall better than his more-acclaimed work The Remains of the Day (which I plan to read soon)?

    Whew, sorry, that was a long comment.

  2. thirithch September 28, 2011 / 3:05 pm

    No problem – I like long comments! 🙂

    I definitely liked the Antarctic episode best about Solar, perhaps because Beard was out of his comfort zone and therefore I felt at least some sympathy for him. (I agree that everyone involved would’ve been better off if certain appendages had indeed frozen off.) I’d come across the anecdote with the crisps in Douglas Adams’ So Long and Thanks For All The Fish, which I enjoyed a lot more, so being reminded of it didn’t work in McEwan’s favour – but at least he referenced Adams.

    I’ve only just started on Never Let Me Go and won’t go anywhere near the film until I’ve finished it. Having said that, while I’m not all that keen on Keira Knightley (you may find some less than positive comments about her made on this blog…), I like Andrew Garfield and Carey Mulligan a lot, so I think I will check it out at some point.

    I’ll have to get back to you about your Remains of the Day question once I’ve finished NLMG. 🙂

    • Joseph M September 28, 2011 / 3:24 pm

      Cool! I thought by “Part of me wishes I’d been able to read it unspoiled” you meant that you’d seen the movie. I’m not a big fan of Keira Knightley either. Her Elizabeth Bennett fell miserably flat for me, and I never understood why so many people raved so much about that re-imagining of P&P (among them some of my friends at uni, whose judgments I quickly questioned, haha). She also never exactly fulfilled my vision of Cee in Atonement, ugh, I got so stressed when I found out she was playing the role. Carey Mulligan, I infinitely loved since An Education, and Andrew Garfield is simply charming, I am secretly waiting for his Spiderman. Heee. I shall await your feedback on the book (and movie if you do decide to see it)!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s