-->

Monday, March 10, 2025

Something New

 We feature each fortnight Nicholas Reid's reviews and comments on new and recent books.  

“WHY WE’RE GETTING POORER – A realist’s guide to the economy and how we can fix it” by Cahal Moran (published by William Collins; distributed in New Zealand by Harper-Collins, $NZ39.99); “NESTING” by Roisin O’Donnell (published by Scribner; also distributed in New Zealand by Harper-Collins, $NZ39.99)

 


            Cahal Moran is an economist, gained his PhD at the University of Manchester and now lectures at the London School of Economics. In his introduction he says he rebelled from the traditional economics that was taught him at university in a style that emphasised mathematics rather than considering real human situations.

Moran’s style is a breezy one. To jolly readers along, he often interposes in his theses quotations from funny comments in TV sit-coms and cartoons - but of course his intention is very serious. He wants to tell us why, despite all the improvements that have been created in the world, we are still on the back-foot, and even in developed and advanced countries there is much real poverty.  He explains his book’s title thus: “What exactly do I mean by ‘getting poorer’? The answer is that across the global economy, people are much poorer than they could be and that they reasonably should be….across the global economy most people remain in poverty and we have not done enough to address this. All the problems with the uneven economy can be tackled by reining in the rich and powerful while boosting the poor and disadvantaged, though there is room for reasonable disagreement about how exactly to do this.” (pp.12-13). So at once he plants his flag on the side of general monetary reform and the Left.

While Moran does deal with global economics, readers should be aware that his perspective is mainly a British one, and many of the ‘cases’ he gives are set in England. He emphasises that if a working-class is in good health, there will then be a working-class happier working and more productive – and therefore there should be a much improved National Health system than the one Britain has. [It is now in distress – a bit like New Zealand’s health system.] Also please note that even if he is on the Left, Cahal Moran is not blind to other people’s views and he sometimes gives credit to entrepreneurs and capitalist companies that have really tried to relieve poverty.

In his first chapter “The Uneven Economy” he begins with a brief and general survey of economies in former ages – slavery, feudalism, the evolution of the market etc. It is always understood that production is a mass thing – that is, many are involved. This being the case he says that employees should therefore have a say in the running of businesses and corporations because they are essential workers. Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx also said this in their own ways. [By the way, Adam Smith is often quoted by the Right as the founder of Capitalism – so you may be surprised to find Moran often quotes Adam Smith with approval.]  But the fact is that the mass of workers are not always treated as partners by their employers and not given the same freedoms. Also those who employ and are wealthier have privileges – as in free time off etc. To  give an example of inequality, he points out that during the Covid lock-downs [in England], employed clerks, employed accountants and others could work on “at home”, while employed working-class had to either stay at home or [if their work was out out-doors], they could get on with it. He says   Surely, at some point virtually everybody has to get back to work – but it is strange that we can easily recognise those whose labour we literally cannot live without, then continue to pay them poorly and treat them badly” (p.51) So he uses this to assert that the economy is uneven in the sense that not all have the same opportunities to thrive.

Turning to Chapter Two he asks “Why are there so many billionaires?” and he says it is easier now for the very wealthy to buy out rival companies, put together conglomerates, and continue the process until they are on the “Forbes’ Rich List”. Why? Because laws against monopolies have, in the last few decades, been eased to the point where laws no longer matter. In detail Moran gives accounts of billionaires who exploit their employees; endlessly claim patents that they’ve often filches; make even more money by underpaying employees on site; grossly paying themselves (i.e. billions) for things they have not earned; obsession with buying out other companies etc. Says Moran: “Tech companies could be accused of providing a glossy coat over the far darker reality of how their products are produced. Terms like ‘the cloud’ provoke lofty images of ideas floating around the sky when in fact internet servers are huge blocks of complex circuitry located in warehouses across the world which must be perpetually cooled, an extremely energy-intensive process.” (p.82) Certainly there are some millionaires who have financed beneficial things, but as benefactors they are usually a sham, their main purpose being to boost their prestige and be admired.

But what of those who say that anyone could become rich if they only try and work hard? Moran deals with the fallacy, in Chapter 3 “Who Climbs the Ladder?”, on “the myths of meritocracy” . In every country in the world there are social classes, be they tribal, caste [as in India], or aristocracy – and of course in the differences between upper, middle and lower class. In Britain, most of Europe, America and their off-springs, the wealthy are born into the higher classes. Yes, there is the occasional lower-class person who becomes very wealthy, but that is a rare exception. On the whole, poorer people have to deal with immediate problems, such as how much money is coming in and how to pay the rent. It is therefore harder for them to accrue much money than it is for those who are set up by all-ready wealthy parents . [In passing Moran also deals with how it is often, for women and people of certain ethnicities, to be turned away by potential employers.] On the whole, too, poorer people are less likely to have a thorough education that might have allowed them to become doctors, lawyers, academics, engineers etc. Naturally Moran, and very reasonably, takes a crack at Britain’s upper-class filthy rich who are able to go to elite schools (Eton, Harrow etc.), many of whom end up as Members of Parliament or very rich entrepreneurs. Middle-class people may choose and find solid state schools… but the pupils of the working-class tend to be in poorer areas where the schools are not as helpful with teachers who are less likely to lead pupils into the professions. The simple fact is that, all over the world, real education is not available to everyone.

It is only in Chapter 4 “Is Poverty Getting Better?’ that Moran turns his focus away from Britain and considers the world at large. Optimistic writers [especially American ones] keep telling us that nowadays millions are being “brought out of poverty” every day. But in reality, this means that the “precariat” [those living in precarious situations] are getting a tiny-little-more than they used to have and they are still on the edge of starvation. Optimistic statistics tend to ignore this fact. Yes, here are some impoverished countries that have gained a little by the WHO [World Health Organisation], but Moran notes:  The USA has effective veto power at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is responsible for lending to poor countries and often imposes conditions on the types of policies they can enact. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) determines the terms and conditions of trade between countries. Even though the WHO is more democratic than the IMF or WB [the World Bank], many poor counties simply lack the resources to engage meaningfully in trade negotiations.” (p.172)

But does all this answer Moran’s title “Why We are Getting Poorer”? In his last two chapters, he is much more discursive, rambling somewhat. He asks about why it is now so difficult in England for people – even middle-class people – to secure a mortgage and a house. Locations – especially in desirable locations in cities – are almost impossible for the middle-class to get. Why? Because banks deal not only with mortgages but also with trading companies who snap up locations to build their offices, apartment-blocks etc. so…  We have seen the financial sector get more and more into property, with the result being serious instability. It was not until the late twentieth-century wave of financial deregulations – which, contrary popular belief, came in the early 1970s before [Margaret] Thatcher – that ‘regular’ banks could now get into the mortgage business more freely…. These days, banks do the majority of their lending for commercial real estate…” [pp.199-200] He compares this with the more generous public housing that is provided in some European countries.

He then launches into the matter of what money is anyway, telling us the obvious that money is made by banks, that loans and bonds are the same thing, how currencies are made or printed, and all transactions are loans. When he deals with inflation, he says this often occurs because when workers get a rise in their wages, prices go up because companies and shopkeepers raise prices to put a bit more money in their pockets. And “To put it bluntly, central bankers are too obsessed with wages, specifically when they go up, which is often assumed prima facie to be a bad thing. This is a political choice that we do not talk about nearly enough…” (p.270) In his very last chapter “Why did the Global Economy Break?” he does not really give a coherent answer.

Coming to the end of this book, I concluded that Moran tells many truths, is enlightening in places, is not a fanatic in any way, but somehow hasn’t persuaded me that he has answered the ultimate question he has asked - “Why Are We Getting Poorer”? Maybe we are, but in more ways than he has explained. But worth reading.

Sarcastic Footnote: For the benefit of those who see themselves as virtuous because they use electric cars rather than petrol driven, please note “… it is unclear that efforts such as Musk’s are the kind of environmental change that is needed to stop feeding either local pollution or climate change. An obvious problem with a company like Testa is that if most electricity is produced with fossil fuels, then the impact of electric cars is nullified. It’s little good swapping your oil-fuelled car for electricity that is produced by oil fuel… public transport almost always results in lover emissions than cars, whether they’re petrol or electric.” (pp.93-94)

  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *


 

            In Dublin in Ireland, Ciara is married to Ryan Fay. They have two daughters, 4-year old Sophie and 2-year-old Ella. Ryan is a civil servant. Ciara wants to work too and get out and about. She’s been to university, has degrees, is capable of being a teacher and she wants to be more than a house-bound housewife. But Ryan won’t let her. He does not beat her or otherwise physically hurt her. There are no bruises on her. But he does constantly intimidate her, belittle her, shout at her and demand that he alone is the master of the family. It’s a sort of psychological torture. So one day Ciara packs her bags when Ryan is at work, takes their two little girls, and flees, looking for shelter somewhere in the city where Ryan can’t find her.

            Ciara hasn’t told Ryan that she is pregnant. Roisin O’Donnell sets her story in 2018-2019, the years when abortion became legal in Ireland, and she gives some references to this. At first we might think that Ciara is looking for an abortion; but that turns out not to be the case. She gives birth to a little boy. When Ryan finds out about this he becomes even more possessive then before, saying their son belongs to him. Much of the novel concerns his ruses, tricks and sheer nastiness in trying to find her and drag her back to him. He gets a solicitor. She is able to get a solicitor only because there is free help for the poor.  In court, the magistrate, despite being a crusty old man, rules that Ryan can have access to the children only at limited times and the children will stay with Ciara. But this is just the beginning to what Ryan can do.

            Obviously this is a story of misogyny and an account of obsession. Ryan’s parents think Ciara is shaming their son and she is a thoughtless mother. Ciara’s family (who live in England – Sheffield to be precise) have different attitudes.

            But while this is the backbone of the story, the novel is as much concerned with the fate of those who cannot find shelter or a home in the city. Ciara first hides with her children in a hotel (where there are other people in distress). Then she tries to buy or rent an apartment, as often as not being turned away or not having enough to pay the rent, even though she has found work. Of course there are people who help her on the way – mainly women -  but frankly, Roisin O’Donnell is indicting city councils for not providing accommodation for those who are not wealthy.

            Nesting often reads as very good journalism and O’Donnell’s prose is clear and  readable. But I do have some gripes. I am sure there are men who mistreat their wives or partners, even the ones who do not use direct violence. But Ryan is so devious and clever in his ways that he almost becomes a super-criminal. Or am I being naïve about this? Anyway, it’s almost “hiss the villain” territory, and we do not really understand how he became a monster in the first place. I also find the denouement [the last three or four pages] improbably melodramatic, while Ciara’s friendship with a nice Brazilian man becomes a little too neatly lovey-dovey. And my goodness it is long – 383 pages long to be precise.

            Still, this is just me being grumpy. For what it’s worth, Nesting has already been lauded in Irish, English and American reviews, so what am I to be a little out of step? A huge readership is likely.  

Something Old

Not everything worth reading is hot off the press. In this section, we recommend "something old" that is still well worth reading. "Something Old" can mean anything from a venerable and antique classic to a good book first published year or two ago.    

“SPLENDEURS ET MISERES DES COURTISANES” [variously translated into English asA Harlot’s Progressor, in the Penguin translation,A Harlot High and Low”] by Honore de Balzac (First published together in 1847, sections of which had earlier been published separately )


            Readers of Balzac’s works are often confused by the way a character in one novel can turn up in another novel, sometimes as a major character and sometimes as a purely incidental character.  These are the “recurring characters” that critics often discuss. Some years back, when I visited in Paris the house where Balzac wrote some of his best works, I saw on the wall a large plan of all the recurring characters and how they were linked with one-another and in which novels they appear. There were hundreds of them. In Splendeurs et Miseres des Courtisanes, one of Balzac’s longest books, a major character carries over from Lost Illusions [reviewed on this blog]. If I were the kind of chap who chases down all the rabbit holes of Balzacian literature, then I would diligently tell you of which character was related to whom. But I will not test your patience. Splendeurs et Miseres des Courtisanes is one of Balzac’s more “sensational” works, the sort that (with some reason) is often criticised as, in places, near to a thriller or “shocker”. It is also as much a collection of different stories put together as L’Histoire des Treize [also reviewed on this blog]. And once again, it is therefore one of Balzac’s longest. Incidentally, some readers of this blog have told me that my synopses of novels are too long, so I will attempt to give you brutally short ideas of the “novel’s” four sections.

            Part One  [the headings as given in the Penguin version] “Esther’s Happiest Days” Esther van Gobseck, known as “La Torpille”, is a fashionable, beautiful courtesan [i.e. expensive prostitute]. She falls in love with the young Lucien de Rubempre, but she almost commits suicide because of the fact that she is Jewish – therefore  not acceptable to many in the upper classes. She is rescued by the master criminal Vautrin [who in this novel goes by the alias “Collin” ] and places her into a convent, gets her baptised, explains to her how high society works and then lets her live for four years with Lucien. Their life is bliss. But Lucien de Rubempre wants to be accepted into high society himself and starts courting the rich but plain daughter of a Duke, Clotilde. He claims to be a wealthy man. And coincidentally another roue, the elderly  millionaire banker Baron de Nucingen, sees beautiful Esther and wants her for his own. There follows long bargaining [which I will not present in detail] between “Collin” and Baron de Nucingen and a whole circus of criminals, lechers and schemers before “Collin” gets the money he wants and de Nucingen gets Esther.

Part TwoWhat Love May Cost an Old Man” Old de Nucingen pays large sums to set Esther up in style. Comical in his love-sickness [he does not yet have sexual intercourse with Esther] he is advised by his wife on how to entertain a mistress…. But then his wife accepts such things as she has a lover, the pushy Rastignac. There are many intrigues among the police who want to find out who “Collin” really is… and a bunch of lawyers work out that Lucien de Rubempre is not the wealthy man he claims to be. The daughter of a Duke, Clotilde, whom Lucien was courting is taken by her family out of Lucien’s reach. Meanwhile, Esther is about to enter fully into life as de Nucingen’s mistress. There is to be a great celebration in her apartment. But Esther is so depressed by the prospect that she will now really be an old man’s harlot that she takes poison and commits suicide. Goodbye to the courtesan who was about to be a wealthy mistress. Lucien has illegally made a rendezvous with Clotilde, still trying to get her marry him. But her parents are on the warpath, and he is arrested and thrown into jail. “Collin” [Vautrin], who has been arrested for many crimes, is also thrown into jail. [NB For the sake of brevity, I’ve skipped  a side-story wherein a certain Peyrade whose daughter is kidnapped caught by Vautrin gang. She is debauched at an orgy. Peyrade dies of grief.]

            Part ThreeWhere Evil Ways Lead” [and here I will be very brief]. Both Lucien and “Collin” are in jail – but in separate cells. At one point, Lucien hears that the late Esther bequeathed her money to him. But it does not bring him any good. The police are now determined to find out who “Collin” really is. Under pressure, Lucien betrays “Collin” as the man who for a long time has been pretending to be as priest [the same bogus priest who appeared in Lost Illusions]. Shamed, and caught out in various dodgy deals he has done, Lucien hangs himself. But from all this, “Collin” [Vautrin] still is cunning enough to survive.

            Part FourThe Last Incarnation of Vautrin” has the criminal clever enough to extricate himself from any situation. In the prison yard of the notorious Conciergerie he is able to gather together a gang of spies and thugs. Through them, and in other ways, he promises the police that he will find out who murdered an important person, so long as he gets pardoned and becomes the head of the police’s detective squad!!. After much detective work he is pardoned, and does indeed  become head of the police’s detective squad!!! But to round it off, he has Esther and Lucien interred side-by-side, two sad suicides; and in an emotive scene he collapses at their funeral. He continues in his police work and dies of old age. The crim wins.


 

            Dear reader, for the sake of brevity, I have stripped this synopsis to the bone, missing out many characters, missing out many episodes, and certainly sparing you from being told who in this novel has already appeared in other of Balzac’s novels. Leave the litany of “recurring characters” to the real Balzacian fanatics. There is, however, one recurring character who has to be noted. For those who think that a criminal becoming a police inspector is rather improbable, then please be aware that Balzac was drawing this character, Vautrin, from real life. Vautrin is based on Eugene-Francois Vidocq, a long-term criminal, often jailed, but also expert at escaping. Eventually, because he knew all the underworld and all the ways of criminals, he was invited to be the head of France’s first criminal investigation bureau and he held that position for many years. His methods are often regarded as the foundation of modern criminality. Balzac knew Vidocq personally and used him as the model for Vautrin in many of his novels  - Lost Illusions, Le Pere Goriot etc. Incidentally, “Vautrin” means a wild boar and it was one of Vidocq’s nicknames.

After saying this I hope you realise that I, a great fan of Balzac’s work, think Splendeurs et Miseres des Courtisanes is one of the Master’s lesser pieces. Even more than the third part of  Lost Illusions and the three separate tales of  L’Histoire des Treize, Splendeurs et Miseres des Courtisanes is a literary mess. It does not hang together as a single novel and shows the strains of writing for serial publication (which, by the way, was how Charles Dickens presented his novels). Despite the “novel’s” title, the courtesan ceases to be the centre of attention halfway through the tale (she dies in Part Two). With her disappearance there is the complete and disconcerting disappearance from the novel of other major characters, such as the millionaire banker Baron de Nucingen. Much of it has an air of improvisation with new characters introduced at convenient moments. Balzac is keeping his yarn going and writing himself out of a corner. Three murders (at least), two suicides and the final cheek of the master criminal [based on Vidocq] becoming a respected detective. Blood and thunder elements there certainly are. I’d willingly describe Splendeurs et Miseres des Courtisanes as one of Balzac’s most absurd and far-fetched plot. Yes, there are some good moments, but it is mainly the type of thing that allows a ninny like the critic Martin Turnell to condemn all of Balzac’s work, including masterpieces like Le Pere Goriot, Cousine Bette, Cousin Pons, La Rabouilleuse and many of Balzac’s best short stories.

I could say much, much more about what is wrong with Splendeurs et Miseres des Courtisanes, but brevity is what you wanted and so you get it.

Something Thoughtful

  Nicholas Reid reflects in essay form on general matters and ideas related to literature, history, popular culture and the arts, or just life in general. You are free to agree or disagree with him.

                                                          IRRITATING WORDS

            The state of the world is such that I should be writing a column about Gaza, Ukraine, tariffs, climate change and how much the Academy Awards stink. But the fact is you have already heard every pundit, journalist, columnist and general loud-mouth belch out their half-baked ideas and I refuse to join the fray. Instead, I put myself in grumpy mode and decide to give you a lecture on the misuse of words. So sit up straight and listen carefully. There will be questions after.

            Clichés .

How often do you now hear on radio or TV some tired journalist use the cliché “the song book”. I could be wrong [occasionally I am], but I believe the phrase first became popular in the United States. It is inserted most often in the context of discussing politics, where some journalist wants to belittle a politician for merely copying what somebody else has already said; or castigating a politician as merely mouthing what the leader of his/her party has said. Yes, I get the metaphor. Song books were, once upon a time, literally printed books for singing in church; or books [or sheets] that people read from in old-time community “sings”; so the idea was that this meant people baying to the same tune… like a politician. So we now get journalists saying “Trump is playing from Hitler’s song book” etc. etc. Okay. I get it. But can’t we go back to saying “XYZ politician is repeating [somebody else]” or other obvious ways of making a point? “The song book” metaphor is now worthy of being ditched.

            Going forward”: For God’s sake abandon this tiresome phrase. Much better to say “in the future” as we used to do. Besides, who says we’re necessarily “going forward when we don’t know whether we are going forward or going backwards in our development. Going forward we might be falling off a cliff.

            Passed” : Okay, I’ve whacked you with this before but it’s worth repeating. Maybe you could say politely to a very old person that somebody had “passed away”. But if you are dealing with sturdy adults you should say that somebody has died. It is both more honest and more truthful. Besides, if I have been told that grandma has “passed” I would immediately assume that my grandma has passed my front door. These days she is losing it after all.

            Misuse of language

         There are many words that are simply misused – almost always by those who do not know the meaning of the word in the first place; and often misused by people boosting ephemeral people in showbiz. Here are some particularly annoying examples.

Iconic: I won’t go into the history of icons and what is truly iconic, but at least something iconic must mean a person or work that has become very well known, esteemed and important in a whole civilisation. But now we have boosters saying that such-and-such half-forgotten pop-singer is “iconic” e.g. “Mike Turniphead is the iconic singer of the 1962 hitI’m gonna slobber all over you”. Same goes for Classic: Yep. I’m not a pedant, so I don’t expect people now to use the word only when referring to ancient Greece and Rome. But I do reasonably expect the word to be used when referring to something that has weathered at least some time, is greatly admired and widely known. Now the showbiz boosters and scribblers for “social media” will tell us that “Last week’s joke on our favourite channel was a classic”. Need I go into detail, in the same context, about the misuse of Legendary, as in “Barny Bloots is the legendary stagehand who once picked up Mick Jaggers’s used handkerchief mid concert. What a hero!

            Finally, I can’t leave you without annoying some of you. I believe the words student or students should not be used for primary-school children or for most teenagers at secondary-school [high-school as Americans call it]. Real students study. Real students are earnest and earnestly seek to learn more about things. Real students go further than merely doing dutifully assignments that have been given to them. Primary-school children, no matter how good their teachers are, are at best learning only the basics – essential, of course, but not any more than setting out blocks [metaphorically] for the children to learn. Some secondary-school adolescents are genuine students. The great majority are not. How dare I say this? Because I was a high-school teacher for 30 years, that’s why. I am fully aware that some “students” at university are slackers who do little studying. Even so, I believe that the terms student or students should not be used for primary-school children or for most teenagers at secondary-school. The appropriate terms should always be pupils. My fervent belief is that the only reason the words “student” and “students” have been given to primary-school children and secondary-school adolescents is that teachers wanted to boost their prestige and get more mana as a profession. Very sad when you think of it.

            Have I annoyed you? So be it.