. Stone Tavern Farm 1993 2016 2-Up 4th of July aberlour abortion Acid House ACT UP Adjunct Commuter Weekly Afghanistan AIDS AKP party Alan Sidrane Albany Alex Clark Aman Mojadidi Amie Siegel amy poliakoff Andrea Dworkin.Mad Men Andres Serrano Andrew Nichols angela carter angela pham Anna Moschovakis Anti-Rent War Apple apple cider Apple logo apple week applejack Architecture ardbeg Argos Arkville Arkville Bread and Breakfast Arnolfini Art Artemisia Gentileschi Artforum Arthur Dent Artists Space balvenie bankruptcy Belgrade Benjamin Buchloh Benjamin Genocchio Berlin Bernadette Corporation Best American Essays Bibi Seck Bibliobarn Bierstadt blogging blue BOMB Boston Marathon Bovina Bovina Library bowmore Brady Campaign Breezy Hill Inn Brian Loughlin Bristol Bruichladdich Bull Run Road Bundy Uprising Bushmills Buttercup butterflies Cabela's Campbeltown caol ila cardhu Catskill Mountain News Catskill Watershed Corporation catskills Catskills Community Garden Club Catskills FarmLink Centraal Museum Chandigarh chantal chadwick Charivari Charles Maclean Chloe Sevingy Chris Kraus Chris McGee Christie's Christmas civil rights clarence de mar climate change Colbert Report Colleen Asper Columbia Spectator community garden Contemporary Art Corbusier cragganmore Craig Taylor Crystal Bridges Damien Davis Damien Hirst Dan Chadwick Dario Robleto David France David Zwirner Dawn Kasper deer delaware county deminer Denver NY DEP police Department of Environmental protection Depeche Mode Derek Eller Gallery design Design Academy Eindhoven Design Observer Detroit Institute of Arts Devin Mills Diana Spechler Dick Sanford Diego Rivera Diller and Scofidio Dita Von Teese drones Duchamp East Meredith Elissa Schappell Ellen Lesperance Ellie Ga emma goldman Equal Rights Amendment Erodgan Erotica essays Esther Snyder Eva Hesse facebook Farming Bovina Feature feminism Feminist Porn firearms fireworks Fleischmanns flood cleanup Fogo Island Food Forrest Bess Francis Jenkin III Frank McHardy Franklin Getchell Frieze frieze London fair FSBO Gabriel Orozco gallery girls Garage Sale garden snakes gardening Gary Simmons Gerhard Richter Gezi Park ghosts glenfiddich glenfiddichaphids glock glynwood Goldman Sachs google Goya Foods Graffiti Gran fury Granta greg meyer Greg Olear Growing Up Modern Guerrilla Girls Gulf Futurism Gulf Times Gun violence halcyon Harper's Harry Rifkin Hayhenge Headshot hearthbreak hill Hedley Wright Hella Jongerius Henry James Hershey's Kisses Hidden Inn HIlton Als Hollin Hills hollow point bullets Home Goods How To Survive A Plague Hubbell Hubbells Hudson River School hunting Hurricane Irene Hurricane Sandy ICA Indrani Mukherjee inez Valk Isa Genzken Istanbul Aquarium Jake Rosa janet malcolm Janet Steen Jay Sanders Jay-Z Jean Kormos Jeff Tomasi Jennifer Kabat Jennifer Lyon Bell Jennifer Sirey Jeremy Deller Jerry Saltz Jessica Gingrich Joan Benoit Samuelson Joe Moskowitz Joe Perez John Chamberlain John Currin John Lanchester John McCracken John Pawson John Peterson John Reekie John Ruskin John Schulman Jon Raymond Jony Ive Joseph Andreani Joseph O'Neill Judy Chicago Justus Kempthorne Kabinett & Kammer Kabul Kasauli Kate Newby Kathrine Switzer Kelly Reichardt Ken Loach Kenneth Wynder kerri lisa kevin powers Kevyn Orr kim jones Knitting Nation kunsthalle wien LA Kauffman La Loge Lacanian Ink ladies of the night Lady Gaga land mines language LARB Larry Clark laylah ali Lee Little LEEBA Lifesavers Lisa Selin Davis Liz Collins liz margulies LLos Angeles Review of Books local food Loch Lomond London Police protest Londoners Los Angeles Review of Books Luc Tuymans Lutz Bacher Lynne Tillman Maarten Bass maggie schaffer Margaretville Margaretville Central School Marge Miller Marina Abramovic Mark Birman Mark Dion MARK Project Marlen Esparza Marlene McCarty Martha Rosler Martine Syms marty margulies Mary Cassatt Marybeth Mills massoud hassani Matinee McSweeney's Metropolis metropolitan museum of art Miami Art Museum Michael Maharam Michelle Grabner Michelle Lopez Michelle Petricini Michelle Segre Michelle Sidrane Middletown Mies van der Rohe Mike Kelley Mike Triolo Mine Kafon minimalism Mitt Romney modernism MoMA Moss Store Mountain Brook Inn Mr Ed Mudfest Mureille Scherre Murray Moss Museum of Sex Music Nabokov nadja Marcin Nancy Barton Nari Ward Neil Bartlett New York City New York City DEP Nicholaus Schafhausen nina turner Notting Hill Notting Hill Editions NW NY Review of Books NY Times NYC DEP Oakleys Occupy Olympics On Stellar Rays Our Greater Selves Paul Elliman Paul Ryan Peg Ellsworth Peter Applebome Peter Schjeldahl Peter Staley Philip Johnson Phoenicia Phoenicia Lodge Pinups plattekill pleasure poetry Populism Prattsville Qatar Quakers Quarlteres Queen Victoria Rain Like Cotton Rainmakers Flood Raleigh bikes Rembrandt René Daumal Richard Merritt Richard Nixon Richard Prince Richard Sanford Rob Janoff Rob Pruitt Robert Rauschenberg Roberta Smith Rochelle Feinstein roe V wade Roger Ross Williams Roxbury Roxbury Central School Royal College of Art RSK farm rush limbaugh Russell's General Store sade safari Salon Sam Byers Sandy Hook Sara Loughlin Sarah Ann Henley Sarah Lyall scotch Scott Finley Sean Beaudoin Sean Scherer Sex Shakers shalane flanagan Sheila Pepe Shia LeBeouf short stories Shulamith Firestone Simon Preston Gallery skiing Skin Like Sun skype Slavery snowmaking Sojourner Truth Sophia Al Maria South Kortright Springbank Stanley Fish Stedelijk Museum Stephanie Weber Stephen Burks Stephen Elliot Sterling and Francine Clark Institute Sterling Clarkl Sternberg Press Steve Jobs Steve Koester Stroud Sue Ilho Sue Williams Supervisor Campaign supervisor debate Table on Ten Taksim Square Tate Modern Tatlock & Thomson TED Television the Believer the Bibliobarn The Brooklyn Rail The Catskills The Cheese Barrel the civil war The Digital Blues The Evening Standard the fourth of July The Future Starts Here The Hayward Gallery the hedonic treadmill. The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy the ICA the Met The Miner's Strike The Muster The New Museum The New York Times The New Yorker the NRA The Peekamoose the Promise The Rainmaker's Flood The Record The Roxbury Barn The Rumpus The Talking Heads The Weeklings The Western The White Review The Whitney Biennial the Whitney Museum The Woolpack The Yellow Birds Thomas Cole Thomas Thwaites Time Life Science Tintoretto Todd Akin Tom McCarthy Treadwell Trevor Paglen tThe Weeklings Turkey Two Dark Birds Two Old Tarts Two Paths for the Novel undefined University of Albany Art Museum Upstater V&A Museum Valeria Luiselli Vanessa Muller Vermeer Victoria Charkut VQR Wallpaper* Walt Whitman Walter R Brooks Watts Towers Wayd Jaquish weddings Whisky William Boyd William Hazlitt Prize William Pitt the younger Williamsburg Winslow Homer Winter in the Catskills blog WIOX writing Zadie Smith Zanele Muholi zita Cobb zucchinis Zuccotti Park

Entries in Londoners (2)



HIS IS PROBABLY a mistake, and you should stop reading here. A young novelist without a published novel decides to write on Zadie Smith’s NW and “Two Paths for the Novel” in hopes of getting some answers to her own writing? Save yourself. Turn back now. Though, if you keep reading I can promise you no discussion of process (at least, none of my own). I am writing this because I am bored (read: struggling) with my own novel but also more than that with the very idea of writing novels, and because I’m jealous too, not of Zadie Smith (this won’t – at least, I don’t think it will – be a take down of her) but of artists, you know, visual artists, and how they get to think about form. Why is that question of form so rare in books? This is the reason I appreciated Two Paths, her essay which, to summarize very, very briefly, laid out the case for the novel (as an institution) between what she calls “lyrical realism” (you know, the novel with lots of description and interiority) vs. something that might be called “modernist” or “postmodernist.” Those are what she terms the “avant-garde” path.

Click to read more ...


London Calling – Craig Taylor and Londoners

THIS THE YEAR of Jubilees (diamond), Olympics (gilded) and a mayoral election between two nearly comiccharacters (that's you Boris and Red Ken, who only wears beige suits despite his "red-ness"), Craig Taylor's insanely dazzling book Londoners is all the more apt.

Craig is a master interviewer and a great storyteller. I interviewed him for The Rumpus. You can read the whole thing there or here below:

I’ve often thought writing takes equal parts alienation and ego, one to see things and the other to think your vision warrants recording. But, after reading Craig Taylor’s Londoners, I think it’s just alienation. He writes utterly without ego and creates this great soaring book on London. He moved there and was miserable, and that got him to look around and wonder about all the people who’d apparently cracked the city. He went to work for the Guardian, had to leave (and got to return) after losing his visa, wrote a book about a village in the English countryside and wrote a book based on his Guardian columns, the ravishing One Million Tiny Plays About Britain. And, still he was curious – still wondering who these people were and how they managed. Londoners was his answer.

When I lived there, I was miserable. I was one of the leavers (a distinct category in the book. Its subhead is “The Days and Nights of London Now – As Told by Those Who Love It, Hate It, Live It, Left It and Long for It”). I’d drag my homesickness to Buckingham Palace to hear an American accent. My journey is nearly the mirror opposite of Taylor’s, going from the city to a rural village in Upstate NY, while he went from a rural Canadian fishing village to London. Now that I don’t live there, I love it – and his book – not because it’s about London but for what it says about the city and how it says it – as well as who says it. Most of the time it’s not Taylor at all. It’s anyone, everyone but him.

The book is “oral history.” Yes, that clunky awkward thing, but in his hands the results are transfixing. The voices are hypnotic, turned into solos where people tell their stories, and each is unexpected. They defy the clichés of a London book, you know those by Peter Ackroyd with his histories and novels and historic novels or more recently William Boyd and John Lanchester’s novels that feel saddled with London types. Here, Taylor tells a greater story, and more than that it’s a lesson in interviewing.

In the New York Times Book Review Sarah Lyall called it a masterclass: “The material he elicits proves his skill not only in asking questions that find the eloquence even in the naturally taciturn, but also in knowing the value of keeping offstage…. In an age of celebrity interviewers and bombastic, self-loving television hosts, Taylor is the rare specimen who appears genuinely to believe that other people’s words are more interesting than his own.”

The book is far from a Q&A, but I thought interviewing him might yield some answers about interviews and people and stories. Unlike Taylor and his interviews in the book, we spoke on the phone, from the sticks to his office at Hamish Hamilton in London.


The Rumpus: How did you get started on Londoners?

Craig Taylor: It sort of emerged when I moved here. I didn’t have a great time, and I was always wondering who these people were around me who’d seemed to figure out the city. I started working on the Guardian and interviewed a lot of people in London, and I was curious about them. I thought it would be good to use the city as an excuse to talk to people I wouldn’t have a reason to otherwise. I think any book is an excuse and this just provided me with a really good one.

Rumpus: When I moved to London I felt like looking for a flat was this advanced form of tourism. I was looking in Brixton – far off the tourist track – and felt like it gave me a picture of people’s real lives being in their homes, kind of like interviewing people about their place in the city.

Taylor: Yeah, it’s an excuse to go deeper than your own life, and I always worried that living here, I would get that one perspective, my perspective. This was a chance to move myself out of the picture, and I think everyone intuitively feels about a city that, wow, here are all these people walking this exact same patch of ground, but they’re seeing it differently and they’re doing things completely differently.

Rumpus: How was moving there? I felt lost, and you talked about that too in your introduction.

Taylor: I always thought it was this burst of happiness where you get here it’s almost like a drug. It can be euphoric. You’re in this incredible city, and then if you decide to say, there’s often – and there was in my case – this precipitous drop into a really bleak place where you see that there’s a veneer here that the very rich can live on, but for the rest of us it’s tough work. Then if you stick around, there’s a slow crescendo of satisfaction as you learn to manage the city.

Rumpus: Not to sound like the tourist board but what do you like and hate about London?

Taylor: It’s constantly offering up this parade of sights and sounds and people and stories and status games and all that stuff you look for as a writer. And, I love the places that I’ve made my own and I love the way it looks at dusk. But, I think it’s hard to have one constant feeling about the place. If you just hate it, well, you get out, and if you just love it, you must be making a lot of money, but for the rest of us you hate the way it pushes against you sometimes.

The book really showed me that even when people hate this place, it can be done often in a very entertaining, operatic way. I always loved what people hate about the city. They’d talk about how someone would tilt their foot out on the escalator so no one could get by. The complaining is done in a way that makes it very funny and entertaining. Londoners can be almost operatic complainers.

Rumpus: Did your feelings about the city change in the course of the book?

Taylor: They deepened. It made me really love the complexity of it all. This is such a complex city, and all you can do if you’re dealing with it honestly is embrace that. I hold all these contradictory viewpoints of the city. It’s like one of the people in the book this city planner said, you have this endlessly intimate relationship with this partner that’s constantly offering up endless possibilities and art, but it can also be mean to you. A lot of my own feelings were expressed by people in the book, and I really shied away from generalizations.

Rumpus: Yeah, and by doing that you managed to have this individuality that was rich and surprising but also incredibly specific, as if the specificity tells the bigger story of the city.

Taylor: Yeah, but he’s an expert and no one can argue that fact. If someone said, “God, all Londoners do is drink and screw at Christmas parties,” you can dispute that.

Rumpus: There’s also this humanism, I guess you’d call it in the book, with characters like Pakistani currency trader and the gay Iraqi refugee. They tell this larger story about immigration and what people want in London, but their stories are so idiosyncratic they yield up this richness, this detail.

Taylor: I think with nonfiction you’re allowed to surprise people in a way you can’t with a novel. Some of these stories here would seem impossible or just ludicrous in a novel, like they couldn’t exist. The wonderful thing about nonfiction is that those people do exist, and sometimes that’s the hard thing for novelists writing about London. They choose these archetypes, and I didn’t have to do that. I just went with the real people who are in my mind infinitely more surprising and rich in their experiences.

Rumpus: How did you find everyone? Wasn’t this insanely complex and time consuming? Yet you manage to create a real sense of a journey through the city and how you get to the city, from arriving to leaving, loving and hating it, but getting that sense of narrative must have been hard.

Taylor: Some of the best compliments I’ve had are from people who say, “Oh, that must have come easily.” “Oh, you just went out and talked to a few people and typed it up. Well done you.” That’s great, that’s what it’s supposed to feel like, but hopefully at some point they’ll see it must have taken time to get to the point where someone would say certain things.

It took a great mass of words – almost a million words – and just finding everyone….

I still have the notebooks that show all the phone calls logged and all the emails over a good five years. I spoke to something like 200 people, and sometimes the person you’ll see in the book is the result of five or six interviews with other people who are similar but couldn’t quite say the things that needed to be said or just weren’t as eloquent. It takes a long time, but you just make those calls and talk to people and listen. That’s the big thing, listening.

You can’t do it on the phone; you can’t do it quickly. You just show up, and you have to be present. You have to be with them, and you have to shut up and let them talk and you have to accept that you’re not there to be the most interesting person in the room. It’s more like the stuff you don’t do than what you do, and genuine curiosity is what makes it. At a time when so much is sped up and so much journalism is sped up, there’s no way to make this process quicker. You can’t rush into a room and say, “Okay: hopes and dreams I will need all of them and I will need them said well.”

Rumpus: I like what you said about not being the most interesting person in the room. You’ve largely absented yourself from the book. It’s not about you and that’s really interesting as a writer.

Taylor: I knew I wasn’t able to stand astride London and look at it as a great historian, but it’s weird that we’ve gotten to this place with journalism where you can pick up a magazine or newspaper and learn more about the interviewer than the interviewee. That can sometimes be incredibly interesting but for this project there was no way I was going down that path.

Rumpus: You have a clear affinity for people’s stories. What do you like in telling them?

Taylor: Real people aren’t constricted by the rules of fiction. They are infinitely weird and wonderful, with a depth that’s so unexpected. There are people in the book that I spoke to for one reason and they just veered off from that into this territory that was incredible, their lives, their struggles and what they’ve been through. You just can’t come out of doing a project like this without a sense of, I don’t know, empathy towards others. It’s hard for me to hold certain political views or certain stereotypical views of other people because of the stories I’ve heard and hearing about how people live their lives. That’s an incredibly privileged position.

Rumpus: Did anyone lie to you as you were interviewing them? Did you care?

Taylor: I was never too worried about the lying. If I tell stories about my youth, I change them. I change details; I collapse time. I change things around to gain effect. I make myself more or less sympathetic. Anyone does that when they’re talking about their life, so with that in mind, this form becomes a series of unreliable narrators in the best possible way because we all are. There were some people who were obviously deluding themselves or exaggerating or in some cases just making some stuff up, but that seemed secondary to the purpose. The way they tell and convey is what’s important.

I think it’s summed up by that Samuel Johnson quote I mention in the introduction. It was repeated back to me and mangled and paraphrased. Someone said, “When a lady’s tired of London, that lady’s gonna be tired of lots of other things.” There were people who swore they knew the wording and would be way off.  I thought that sums up this project. It’s not about getting things right. It’s about finding a way, and London for me is very much about that. Living here, you have to change the story because the real story might be too grim. I know I certainly do that. Historians have dedicated their lives to getting it right, but this book is something else entirely.

Rumpus: When I was last in London we were talking about oral history and its flaws. Just the phrase itself doesn’t fit what you’re doing. So what do you call it?

Taylor: Yeah, it has a kind of fustiness, like it’s this kind of thing people do in local history clubs where they indiscriminately interview people for the sake of it. So you’ll have all sorts of old people just talking about what it was like to live in the Thirties. Then, there’s that bias that it’s not really writing, that it only is if you put quotation marks and a “she said” and throw in a detail about where you’re sitting, that that elevates it, whereas this sort of pure voice is not writing.

The more I look at what it can do though, the more I think it’s a kind of avant-garde form. You’re able to do stuff a novel just can’t. There have been some books that have come out about the city recently. Well, there are always books coming out about London and other cities, and the novels are run by these rules where characters have to meet up or their lives have to intersect. The great thing about this book is that no one is going to ever ask me why the plumber never met the banker or why the dominatrix never showed up and talked to the ex-dockman.

This form can carry the depth of fiction, but it can do stuff that the novel just can’t. It can smash itself into these eighty, ninety different pieces and never cohere because the real city doesn’t. The person you meet on the first day, that cab driver who picks you up when you come to the city, isn’t the one who takes you to the airport on the day you leave because cities don’t cohere to that sort of thing. I think the form – this collage of voices – can be a very freeing way of telling a story. At times when the novel feels a bit stale, I love having this ability to do things differently from what a novelist would be bound to do.

Rumpus: Also there’s something about just giving over to a voice too, which is really powerful.

Taylor: All writing is judgmental, but I never had to say, “She was obviously a working class woman who did this or that.” Things come out in people’s voices. They come out in word choice and in cadence and in different attributes. They just emerge as people speak. Also, it is mysterious when this voice starts up. There’s just this narrator, and you have to piece together things. I think in the book there are some clues for each person about where they fit in the social spectrum, but I would much rather the reader figure that out rather than my telling them.