REMINDER - "REID"S READER" NOW APPEARS FORTNIGHTLY RATHER THAN WEEKLY.
We feature each week Nicholas Reid's reviews and comments on new and recent books.
“THE EXPATRIATE MYTH” by
Helen Bones (Otago University Press, $NZ35)
In
the second century AD, the usually-reasonable Roman emperor Hadrian banished
the poet Juvenal from Rome because Juvenal had dared to write a lampoon of one
of the emperor’s favourite actors. This was real exile. If Juvenal returned to
Rome before his time of banishment was up, he could be put to death. In the 20th
and 21st centuries, many writers have been exiles from totalitarian
regimes – Hitler’s, Stalin’s, Mao’s etc. Their life or liberty would be in
danger should they return to their home country. These people were real exiles.
But what of those writers who leave their country of origin simply because they
want to gain new experiences or advance their writing careers? Can they, in any
meaningful sense, really be called exiles?
Okay,
I know the term “exile” can be used metaphorically and I know Jimmy Joyce spoke
of using “silence, exile and cunning”
as stratagems when he wished to leave Ireland. Even so, I think the word has
now been overused in this metaphorical sense, to the point where it has become
almost meaningless. Would any New Zealand writer have faced death or jail had
he or she remained in New Zealand? Nope. Therefore none were ever exiles in any
real sense. This is why I bridled 14 years ago when the late James McNeish produced
his typically myth-promoting volume Dance
of the Peacocks, pretentiously subtitled “New Zealanders in exile at the
time of Hitler and Mao Tse-Tung”. Not one of the writers with whom McNeish
dealt was genuinely in exile, and one or two (like Charles Brasch) returned easily
to New Zealand when what amounted to their extended OE was over. Okay, there
have been New Zealand writers like Katherine Mansfield, Dan Davin and James
Courage who left New Zealand and never returned (apart from brief visits in one
case). And there have been even more writers who have felt that New Zealand (or
at least New Zealand some decades ago) was stifling, limited and isolated from
the real centres of culture, and who yearned for the bigger picture. But my
point about none of this being true exile still stands.
You
may imagine my delight, therefore, when I first caught sight of Helen Bones’ The Expatriate Myth, written as her
doctoral thesis and subtitled “New Zealand writers and the colonial world”. At
last, I thought, someone will take down this New Zealand myth of “exile”. And
indeed there are places in The Expatriate
Myth where Bones does just that. Bones notes in her introduction:
“The term ‘expatriate’ is often commingled
with the category of ‘exile’, a character or idea that occurs frequently within
the field of literary criticism. Such criticism represents literary exiles as
grappling with dislocation and loss, focusing on the creative inspiration or
hindrance that this provides. A common assumption arising from the perceived
necessity of expatriation is that expatriate writers were overseas against
their will: they were compelled to leave their ‘home’ place, resulting in
dislocation and exile.” (Introduction, p.14)
Much
later, she suggests that many literary ‘exiles’ were poseurs, acting out a
drama to make themselves seem more interesting:
“If the idea of a writer was automatically
equated with the idea of exile… it is not too difficult to imagine that some
people played up to this trope. There were those who chose to reject colonial
ties and emphasise the cultural deprivation they had overcome. The idea of
literary exile was a part of European modernism to the extent that it might
have been seen as a desirable situation… The usual persona of an exile,
however, involved conscious ‘self-fashioning’, and living out the life of a
tortured artist, which was a fashionable pursuit in Europe.” She then
instances the fashionable ‘lost generation’ of Americans in Paris after the
First World War. (Chapter 5, p.110)
Most
forcefully, she differentiates real exile from self-chosen expatriation, and shows
how the term has become diluted:
“The term ‘exile’ originally meant
‘banishment to a foreign country’, often as a kind of punishment. It is
commonly used much more broadly than this: according to the Oxford English
Dictionary’s longer definition, it can mean ‘prolonged absence from one’s
native country or a place regarded as home, endured by force of circumstances
or voluntarily undergone… for some purpose’. The term gets even more
diluted when applied to literary exiles, to refer to anyone writing from a
marginalised perspective, rendering the term somewhat meaningless… Thus the
writing industry of London was people heavily with ‘exiles’. Virtually everyone
was marginalised – if not foreign, they were the wrong class or the wrong
gender.” (Chapter 7, pp.148-149)
Yet,
while it is clearly rejected, the myth of ‘exile’ is not Bones’ main focus. She
is most concerned to counter what she sees as a falsehood that was propounded
by New Zealand’s literary “nationalists” in the 1930s (the generation of
Curnow, Fairburn, Mason, Sargeson, Glover et al) and that has been repeated
frequently since. This was the idea that there was no real literary culture in
New Zealand before the 1930s and no networks of writers, and that therefore
writers were compelled to flee overseas (meaning mainly to Britain) to find
circles of like-minded literary people. The “nationalists” saw themselves as
the first generation to be grounded in New Zealand and capable of reflecting
this country in worthwhile literature. Therefore they tended to despise the
‘exiles’ (even Katherine Mansfield) as people who had succumbed to a British
rather than a New Zealand viewpoint and therefore could not be counted as truly
representing this country. They also tended to see New Zealand writers before
their time as producing an ureal, romanticised “Maoriland” image of New
Zealand, designed to tickle the British taste for the exotic.
As
Bones says in her introduction:
“This book will examine the expatriate myth
from two main angles. The first is the widely accepted idea that expatriation
was necessary for New Zealand writers in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries because of the country’s supposed dearth of opportunities, a
result of both the perceived lack of publishing outlets and the absence of a
community of like-minded artistic people” … “The second focus… is an
investigation into the nature and effects of New Zealand expatriatism when it
did occur.” (Introduction, pp.11-12)
Bones’
method is to argue, often with the help of tabulated statistics, that there was
a literary culture in New Zealand before the literary “nationalists” came
along; that there were literary networks; and that only a minority of New
Zealand writers settled permanently overseas. Most of those who did go overseas
did so for a short time only.
The
distinction between “nationalist” writing and “Maoriland” (or “colonial”)
writing is, she says (Chapter 1) artificial. There were continuities. Most
immigrants to New Zealand in the 19th century were literate, giving
New Zealand higher rates of (Pakeha) literacy than any other British colony
with, per capita, more theatrical groups and music societies than in any other
colony. There were strong international links with the rest of the Anglo-world
and New Zealand readers were more au fait
with modern literary trends than is often assumed. Before the 1930s crowd came
along, it was no contradiction in New Zealand to be both “nationalist” and
“imperialist”, given continuing strong links with the imperial centre. (Making
this point, Bones frequently references Felicity Barnes’ New Zealand’s London – A Colony and Its Metropolis, reviewed on
this blog six years ago; and Stafford and Williams’ Maoriland, also noticed on this blog.)
Before
the 1930s, there was a thriving literary culture in terms of much poetry being
printed in newspapers and some (short-lived) literary magazines.(Chapter 2).
Here Bones sometimes references Chris Hilliard’s The Bookmen’s Dominion (reviewed in Landfall magazine, November 2006), and herself sides with the
“bookmen” (Alan Mulgan, O. N. Gillespie, Charles Marris, Pat Lawlor) in the way
they encouraged local writers, did not sneer at expatriates like Katherine
Mansfield, and addressed a wide audience. The new “nationalists” regarded the
“bookmen” as dictating popular taste, but Bones sides with the “bookmen” for
their accessibility, noting:
“The earlier group of bookmen were no more
tyrannical than their successors, and had broader interests over several
genres. The newspaper-based literary culture was more democratic and
accessible, particularly for women, than later literary circles, which tended
to be based in universities. This division caused genre to be more of an issue,
as the university-based scholars favoured realist and modernist modes of
expression (excluding genres like popular writing). The contribution of
newspapers to local writing was not acknowledged because they became less
popular as the medium for ‘serious’ writing as time went on: later writers were
not so interested in this kind of exposure.” (Chapter 2, p.53)
Denying
that pre-1930s New Zealand writers were linked slavishly to England, Bones
chronicles the strong Trans-Tasman connections (Chapter 3) and the importance
of the Australian Bulletin as a site
for publication by New Zealand authors in the early 20th century.
She gives many examples of writers who moved from New Zealand to Australia – or
vice versa – and notes how often both groups were happy to identify themselves
as “Australasians”. Next, she notes (Chapter 4) that, between 1890 and 1935,
while most poetry by New Zealanders was published in New Zealand, the great
majority of novels by New Zealanders, most of whom stayed in New Zealand,
were published in Britain. In other words, it was not necessary to become an
‘exile’ in order to write.
However,
the 1930s literary nationalists built up the legend that becoming an expatriate
meant lacking “authenticity” as a New Zealand writer, and they saw publication
overseas as a sort of betrayal. (Chapter 5) Bones counters this by saying (a.)
Permanent expatriates like Mansfield were the exception rather than the rule
for pre-1930s New Zealand writers. (b.) There was a “cultural cringe”
assumption in New Zealand that literary work published overseas was more worthy
of respect than literary work published in New Zealand. BUT (c.) There was much
self-interest in the “nationalists” decrying overseas publication, as some of
them (like Denis Glover) were intent on promoting their own New Zealand-based
printing and publishing enterprises.
Furthermore
(Chapter 6) New Zealand writers who stayed overseas (Mansfield, John Mulgan)
did not cease to be authentically New Zealanders and wrote much about this
country. Besides which, as a recently-settled colony, considerable numbers of
New Zealand’s general population were always travelling to and fro between New
Zealand and Britain, and not just writers. There were many writers who, like
other New Zealanders, simply made a brief trip to Britain and returned (e.g.
Jessie Mackay). Others initially went overseas to study, not to write (Dan
Davin, John Mulgan, J.C.Beaglehole, James Courage). In the case of New Zealand
journalists, travelling overseas was an inevitable part of their trade.
As
for the great metropolis of London (Chapter 7), some who left New Zealand
believed naïvely that literary success would be more easily attainable there than
in New Zealand – in which assumption they were sorely mistaken. Few were able
to get “introductions” to publishers and many noted the sordor and
unpleasantness of London. Monte Holcroft, A.R.D. Fairburn and Frank Sargeson
all made brief forays into England before realising they were better off as
writers in New Zealand and heading home. In the end, opines Bones (Chapter 8),
it did not matter where New Zealand writers wrote. While a few New Zealand
writers made it into British literary circles, and many were themselves
“insiders” in England, others were snubbed as “colonials”. She remarks that “talent, tenacity and good luck” (p.158)
were required for New Zealand authors to succeed in both New Zealand and
Britain.
So
far, I have simply stated Helen Bones’ case. On the whole it is a good one, but
it is not watertight. Not only are “nationalists” rebuked in nearly every
chapter, but there is a great deal of repetition (as there is in this overlong
review), with the same examples being cited numerous times in the text. The
case could have been stated more concisely. There is also often a scolding
tone. Katherine Mansfield is roundly upbraided for not being more grateful to
New Zealand:
“Katherine
Mansfield enjoyed every material and educational advantage available to her
in New Zealand but preferred to emphasise the deprivations of colonial
life. Widely accepted without question, these attitudes further reinforced
ideas about New Zealand as a cultural desert.” (Chapter 5, p.111) [Emphasis
added]. This sounds like a grumpy parent saying “After everything I’ve done for you…”
Sometimes,
too, Bones seems to undercut her own case, although these may be seen as
intentional “concessions” for the sake of balance. Thus, after just having
referenced the homosexuals Hector Bolitho, D’Arcy Cresswell, James Courage and
Charles Brasch, she remarks:
“The
‘strictures of society’ did inspire some people to go overseas, but this is
often wrongly confused with literary reasons for leaving. The two are entirely
separate issues, as the social constraints did not necessarily prevent people
from writing.” (Chapter 6, p.131)
“Entirely separate issues”? Possibly. But
the experiences of these people do suggest that they felt happier writing
outside New Zealand (even if Brasch returned).
Similarly,
speaking of good postal systems and personal networks of writers in New
Zealand, she says: “Although numbers
were too few to allow a fringe or bohemian subculture to form and encourage
avant-garde literary innovation, there were fledgling literary networks.”
(Chapter 2, p.48) [Emphasis added]
Again,
this suggests the real need to leave the country which some writers felt.
Bones’
presentation and style are logical, orderly and more than a little bloodless,
perhaps because this is a doctoral thesis meeting academic requirements. I did
delight, however, at a few amusing exempla, such as the story of the Aussie Bulletin editor who sent the following
curt replies to New Zealand authors “[Your story] creaks like a cattle truck.” “Your
effort is not worth the blow it strikes at the national ink supply” “As your poem was neatly typewritten we
restrain our wrath.” (all quoted Chapter 3, p.61). Them wuz the days when
editors spoke their minds.
Yet
my main criticism of The Expatriate Myth
is this. Even if she is to be applauded for challenging the myth of “exile”,
isn’t Bones in fact flogging a dead horse when she attacks the “nationalists”? For
at least the past forty years, it has been one of the great indoor sports of
Academe to point out the shortcomings of our old literary nationalists. Indeed
this has become the new orthodoxy. We’ve already read Stuart Murray’s Never a Soul at Home (VUP 1998) and
Lawrence Jones’ Picking Up the Traces
(VUP 2003) and have seen New Zealand literary nationalism dissected by modern
sensibilities. We have looked at the left-wing side of things with Rachel
Barrowman’s A Popular Vision (VUP
1991) and have heard Fairburn’s and Glover’s generation being scolded for their
misogyny and homophobia in Kai Jensen’s Whole
Men (AUP 1996). Then there is John Newton’s recent A Hard Frost (VUP 2017), my review of which may be found on Landfall-Review-on-Line, December 2017,
at this link https://www.landfallreview.com/a-language-of-subterfuge/#more-3452
My
chief impression was that Newton was executing a sort of push-back against the
current orthodoxy by noting that, for all their perceived masculinism, mysogyny
and (possibly) parochialism, the nationalists did bring about some sort of
literary renewal in New Zealand. It remains true, after all, that more New
Zealand poetry and prose after the 1920s can still be read as living statements
and live literature than the poetry and prose before that time, most of which
reads as period pieces.
Perhaps
the modernists exaggerated the concept of necessary ‘exile’ before their time,
but it also remains true (as Bones’ own evidence shows) that many New Zealand
writers felt uncomfortable in New Zealand and wanted to at least taste the
wider world. And perhaps we should be reminded how much smaller New Zealand’s
population was back then (less than one third as large in the 1920s as it is
now) and how much longer overseas travel (exclusively by ship) took then than
it does now. It was not a case of easily accessing metropolitan culture by
instant electronic links, and it was not a case of hopping over to London in a
day or two. To leave New Zealand promised a long absence – perhaps permanent – and
to stay in New Zealand meant the prospect of missing much international
literary culture. The modernists exaggerated and mythologised – but perhaps
there is something to be said for their case after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment