Sign in with Facebook
Ian "Marvin" Graye's Reviews > Project for a Revolution in New York
Project for a Revolution in New York
by
by
Ian "Marvin" Graye's review
bookshelves: frogs, read-2014, re-read, reviews, reviews-4-stars
Apr 01, 2011
bookshelves: frogs, read-2014, re-read, reviews, reviews-4-stars
Read 2 times. Last read March 16, 2014 to March 22, 2014.
A Three-Fold Revolution
At a macro level, "Project" is about the fate of the city, the body and the novel.
All three represent a corpus, society, order and convention (including narrative convention).
Over the course of the novel, all three are subjected to some form of revolution: destruction, break-down, fragmentation, disarticulation, dis-integration or deconstruction.
We observe a cutting up of the natural order, an overthrow of repression, perhaps even (but not necessarily in relation to the role of women) liberation.
Like a film, what is cut up is then re-assembled into a new whole, in this case, the novel. Yet, somehow, the result is alienating. Why is it so?
If it can be done with film, via editing, why can't it be done with the novel? Why are our expectations of the novel different from those with respect to a film? Is it the visualisation of the subject matter that makes film easier to digest?
What about a novel that mimics a film?
Rape, Arson and Murder
The political revolution has already occurred by the time the novel commences. We see its aftermath. The natural order has been overturned, only it has been replaced by disorder, rather than a new order.
Like detective novels, pulp fiction and B-movies, the subject matter of the novel, the immediate consequence of its revolution, is rape, arson and murder (a triad of crimes, this time). Just as the world revolves, it is revolting.
Each crime is a destructive force. Each involves the colour red by way of revolution, fire, bruising and bloodshed.
Robbe-Grillet as author stages this revolution for us to watch. He turns us readers into voyeurs and peeping toms, who look or gaze through the keyhole, or use a phallic key to open the door and seek entry to the forbidden room, where all of the fictive action takes place.
Ironically, the person behind the revolution, the person giving the orders (that supplant the natural order) is Frank, on the one hand, the name of someone who tells it as it is, on the other, perhaps a name indicating a Frenchman, but then perhaps also the author, who might also be a director or a writer/director/producer.
Rehearse/Repeat/Retake/Cut
The novel is drenched in the language of film and theatre. It's labelled a "project" as if it's a treatment or a proposal for a film. On the other hand, the project could merely anticipate what might occur, by design or otherwise.
It's structured as a rehearsal, a repetition (the French word "répéter" means both rehearse and repeat). There is a sequence of scenes, both original shoots and retakes, separated by judicious cutting.
When the revolution does finally come, however, like good actors and good audience members, we will know what to expect and what to be prepared for. The spectacle will be better for the rehearsal.
We implied readers even appear in the novel as interrogators, endeavouring to clarify what has happened, to explain inconsistencies, to recapitulate scenes we didn't quite understand. We are seated and present in the theatre of operations, not just as audience members or witnesses to the crimes, but as contributors to the development and appreciation of the creative work, this filmic/theatrical novel being constructed, apparently, in front of our very eyes. It would be nothing without our gaze.
The City
New York is the locus of the revolution. It has to be, because it is (or was, in 1970, when the novel was written) the global symbol of commerce, the centre of world trade (hence the lure of the World Trade Centre for terrorists).
Because of its status, it is also the centre of advertising, the creation of modern [faux- or fake] aspirations, dreams, fantasies and mythology.
Madison Avenue tells us, as objects, how we should look, as well as telling us, as subjects, how we should look at the objects it has created for us. It is where the dominant gaze is fabricated (well, at least, alongside Hollywood, which after all is just Manhattan's backlot).
If you want to question or overthrow the dominant gaze, then the revolution has to start in New York.
The Body
The bodies in the novel are invariably those of women. They are subjected to graphic violence, rape and torture. The language mimics that of crime fiction and pornography. Fiction mimics the underbelly of society.
Womanhood is portrayed as the virginal white skin which is made bloody red, just as Mallarmé sees a blank sheet of white paper as something pure and virginal that will be sexualised and invaded by the author, enabling it to be read.
Still, sexual violence is present. Does that make the novel or the author misogynist? Is the fiction entitled to stand alone, apart from its author?
The Novel
The revolutionary violence in "Project" is not just its subject matter, but a description of the very process of writing itself. The project is not just the fictional project within the text, it also defines the process by which the text is created.
Robbe-Grillet's project was to overthrow narrative convention, the natural order of fiction. He did so by appropriating the conventions of popular art forms and circumscribing or circumventing them.
Discrete passages look like they could have appeared in crime fiction, but cut up and reassembled, they take on another form. The whole is different from the parts.
While we can admire Robbe-Grillet's ambition, I can't say that it makes for an enjoyable read. The writing is word perfect, the sentences and paragraphs short and sharp and economical, like detective fiction.
However, there are no chapters or other signposts that mark transitions. The editting is so subtle, it's seamless, and frequently it's hard to know when one scene has ended and another has commenced.
As a result, it's quite possible to finish the novel and not have a clue what was going on. Nevertheless, as a whole, it's captivating and draws you back to the first page, so that you're tempted to read it again with greater understanding and appreciation.
Is this making excuses? I don't think so, but the novel is clearly not for every one.
In a way, it's like a formally innovative film. We watch it the first time, trying to get comfortable with the narrative device. On our second viewing, we relax and enjoy the detail and the significance that we missed the first time. The first viewing is just a rehearsal for a repeat visit.
Not everybody will want to do this, but those who can be lead into temptation and who make the effort should be rewarded.
At a macro level, "Project" is about the fate of the city, the body and the novel.
All three represent a corpus, society, order and convention (including narrative convention).
Over the course of the novel, all three are subjected to some form of revolution: destruction, break-down, fragmentation, disarticulation, dis-integration or deconstruction.
We observe a cutting up of the natural order, an overthrow of repression, perhaps even (but not necessarily in relation to the role of women) liberation.
Like a film, what is cut up is then re-assembled into a new whole, in this case, the novel. Yet, somehow, the result is alienating. Why is it so?
If it can be done with film, via editing, why can't it be done with the novel? Why are our expectations of the novel different from those with respect to a film? Is it the visualisation of the subject matter that makes film easier to digest?
What about a novel that mimics a film?
Rape, Arson and Murder
The political revolution has already occurred by the time the novel commences. We see its aftermath. The natural order has been overturned, only it has been replaced by disorder, rather than a new order.
Like detective novels, pulp fiction and B-movies, the subject matter of the novel, the immediate consequence of its revolution, is rape, arson and murder (a triad of crimes, this time). Just as the world revolves, it is revolting.
Each crime is a destructive force. Each involves the colour red by way of revolution, fire, bruising and bloodshed.
Robbe-Grillet as author stages this revolution for us to watch. He turns us readers into voyeurs and peeping toms, who look or gaze through the keyhole, or use a phallic key to open the door and seek entry to the forbidden room, where all of the fictive action takes place.
Ironically, the person behind the revolution, the person giving the orders (that supplant the natural order) is Frank, on the one hand, the name of someone who tells it as it is, on the other, perhaps a name indicating a Frenchman, but then perhaps also the author, who might also be a director or a writer/director/producer.
Rehearse/Repeat/Retake/Cut
The novel is drenched in the language of film and theatre. It's labelled a "project" as if it's a treatment or a proposal for a film. On the other hand, the project could merely anticipate what might occur, by design or otherwise.
It's structured as a rehearsal, a repetition (the French word "répéter" means both rehearse and repeat). There is a sequence of scenes, both original shoots and retakes, separated by judicious cutting.
When the revolution does finally come, however, like good actors and good audience members, we will know what to expect and what to be prepared for. The spectacle will be better for the rehearsal.
We implied readers even appear in the novel as interrogators, endeavouring to clarify what has happened, to explain inconsistencies, to recapitulate scenes we didn't quite understand. We are seated and present in the theatre of operations, not just as audience members or witnesses to the crimes, but as contributors to the development and appreciation of the creative work, this filmic/theatrical novel being constructed, apparently, in front of our very eyes. It would be nothing without our gaze.
The City
New York is the locus of the revolution. It has to be, because it is (or was, in 1970, when the novel was written) the global symbol of commerce, the centre of world trade (hence the lure of the World Trade Centre for terrorists).
Because of its status, it is also the centre of advertising, the creation of modern [faux- or fake] aspirations, dreams, fantasies and mythology.
Madison Avenue tells us, as objects, how we should look, as well as telling us, as subjects, how we should look at the objects it has created for us. It is where the dominant gaze is fabricated (well, at least, alongside Hollywood, which after all is just Manhattan's backlot).
If you want to question or overthrow the dominant gaze, then the revolution has to start in New York.
The Body
The bodies in the novel are invariably those of women. They are subjected to graphic violence, rape and torture. The language mimics that of crime fiction and pornography. Fiction mimics the underbelly of society.
Womanhood is portrayed as the virginal white skin which is made bloody red, just as Mallarmé sees a blank sheet of white paper as something pure and virginal that will be sexualised and invaded by the author, enabling it to be read.
Still, sexual violence is present. Does that make the novel or the author misogynist? Is the fiction entitled to stand alone, apart from its author?
The Novel
The revolutionary violence in "Project" is not just its subject matter, but a description of the very process of writing itself. The project is not just the fictional project within the text, it also defines the process by which the text is created.
Robbe-Grillet's project was to overthrow narrative convention, the natural order of fiction. He did so by appropriating the conventions of popular art forms and circumscribing or circumventing them.
Discrete passages look like they could have appeared in crime fiction, but cut up and reassembled, they take on another form. The whole is different from the parts.
While we can admire Robbe-Grillet's ambition, I can't say that it makes for an enjoyable read. The writing is word perfect, the sentences and paragraphs short and sharp and economical, like detective fiction.
However, there are no chapters or other signposts that mark transitions. The editting is so subtle, it's seamless, and frequently it's hard to know when one scene has ended and another has commenced.
As a result, it's quite possible to finish the novel and not have a clue what was going on. Nevertheless, as a whole, it's captivating and draws you back to the first page, so that you're tempted to read it again with greater understanding and appreciation.
Is this making excuses? I don't think so, but the novel is clearly not for every one.
In a way, it's like a formally innovative film. We watch it the first time, trying to get comfortable with the narrative device. On our second viewing, we relax and enjoy the detail and the significance that we missed the first time. The first viewing is just a rehearsal for a repeat visit.
Not everybody will want to do this, but those who can be lead into temptation and who make the effort should be rewarded.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Project for a Revolution in New York.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Finished Reading
April 1, 2011
– Shelved
April 13, 2011
– Shelved as:
frogs
March 16, 2014
–
Started Reading
March 21, 2014
– Shelved as:
read-2014
March 21, 2014
– Shelved as:
re-read
March 21, 2014
– Shelved as:
reviews
March 21, 2014
– Shelved as:
reviews-4-stars
March 22, 2014
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-12 of 12 (12 new)
date
newest »
newest »
This does not seem like Robbe-Grillet"s best. An edge and incisiveness seem to be lacking. You make your point very clear Ian and substantiate it in a well organized format. Nicely done. Have you read his Voyeur? His style had an impact there without telegraphing intentions, and though an unusual kind-of read for me, was enjoyable and fascinating.
Praj wrote: "This is such a thought provoking statement. Many a times the writer and his literature blur the lines of fiction and fact, of personal and impersonal. And, it becomes a tedious job to separate the art from its artists. and, there are times when common sense should prevail in individualizing the art and its creator.Wonderful review, Ian!"
Thanks so much, Praj. While I felt that the novel was always literary, I was forever conscious that someone like Paul might not like it. It is definitely not for opponents of "Lolita" or "American Psycho".
Stephen wrote: "This does not seem like Robbe-Grillet"s best. An edge and incisiveness seem to be lacking. You make your point very clear Ian and substantiate it in a well organized format. Nicely done. Have you read his Voyeur? His style had an impact there without telegraphing intentions, and though an unusual kind-of read for me, was enjoyable and fascinating."This is the only Robbe-Grillet that I have ever seen or read, although I've read it twice over about 20 years. The first time, I think I was happy just to finish it. This time, I tried to pay a lot more attention to what was going on, but it's not always obvious. I hope I wasn't too negative in my criticism. Information is conveyed to us in various different forms, once when acted, another when observed, another time when recorded, yet another when filmed.
I almost wrote a fictional piece in which I would be sitting on the couch, reading a book, watching a film on TV, FM Sushi was reading a crime novel and someone was prowling around the side of the house. The purpose was to show that these different experiences can bleed into each other, like a sound recording.
I would love to read some of Robbe-Grillet's early works. There is an interesting split of his works here:
http://www.halfaya.org/robbegrillet/
This is one of his mid-period "Cinematic" Novels.
Ian wrote: "Stephen wrote: "This does not seem like Robbe-Grillet"s best. An edge and incisiveness seem to be lacking. You make your point very clear Ian and substantiate it in a well organized format. Nicely ..."Ian, thanks so much for the link! Your idea for a novel sounds intriguing. Hope you get around to it someday.
This was just a piece I was thinking of adding to my review.
certainly sounds like you got more out of it than I, maybe will try it again, though never have much liked his actual films, like his work with Renais, found some of his early work great. particularly Jealousy, and In the labyrinth...
What you say about Jealousy is brilliant. At times, I wondered whether the narrative was primarily a verbalisation of what was on the screen. A novelisation of an imaginary film.
This appears to be the 999th book on your Goodreads Read shelf. Are we supposed to throw you a party for the next?
Stephanie wrote: "This appears to be the 999th book on your Goodreads Read shelf. Are we supposed to throw you a party for the next?"Wow! Thanks for letting me know! The 1,000th will be Norman Mailer!
David wrote: "The revolution will be televised."...if not digitised!
This is such a thought provoking statement. Many a times the writer and his literature blur the lines of fiction and fact, of personal and impersonal. And, it becomes a tedious job to separate the art from its artists. and, there are times when common sense should prevail in individualizing the art and its creator.
Wonderful review, Ian!