Paul Kincaid Interviewing Christopher Priest
The July meeting of the BSFA, The Antelope Tavern London 23/07/08
*
written up by Jonathan McCalmont
Every month, the British Science Fiction Association has an evening meeting in a room above a pub in central London. An author is invited to be interviewed by a critic who will ask them questions for about 45 minutes and then the audience will ask questions for the final 15 minutes (generally, as was pointed out to me, saving the blushes of the critic by asking the more obvious questions). This formula, though simple has proved (in the few short months I have been attending these meetings) to be remarkably robust.
Kincaid was a good choice for the interview as he not only knows Priest quite well, he has also written about him extensively (there's even a chapter on Priest in Kincaid's book What It Is We Do When We Read Science Fiction) and the two chatted comfortably and interestingly about a number of interesting topics.
Firstly, there was the issue of Priest's reaction to the 2006 film version of his novel The Prestige (1995). Interestingly, Priest seem to have blurred the two different works into one making him less sure than Kincaid about what was in the book and what was in the film. He also kept referring to the characters by the names of their actors in the film. When questioned about this, Priest amusingly replied that while he had only read the book once, he had seen the film four different times.
Priest also revealed his suspicions that Christopher Nolan (the film's director) did not actually read the book at all, relying instead upon an initial description by his brother and writing partner Jonathan Nolan. In fact, Nolan even went so far as to suggest that a) people not read the book as it would spoil the film and b) that he had changed everything in the book anyway. Which would be due to a clash of auteurship and Nolan making it absolutely clear that the film is HIS vision and nobody else's, which is arguably due to a difference in artistic culture between film and literature as writers are more open to the idea of their work being 'an interpretation' as opposed to a unique vision. If you are a cinematic auteur, I suspect that making a film about a book by a living author must be an incredibly uncomfortable position.
Priest interestingly mentioned how one particular scene had been changed, depriving a female character of agency and lumping her with an unreasonable motivation. Kincaid saw this as an example of the book's moral complexities failing to rub off of the film but Priest instead saw it as an example of film making being a more forgiving medium than a novel as a film can gloss over weak writing with good visuals and that is never an option for a writer. This struck me as a sound observation and explains a lot about why certain kinds of art house films fall into relying upon a certain kind of long-take cinematography, which is something I have touched on in a recent review.
Another rather splendid observation was the fact that Christian Bale's double in the film resembled a certain Edwardian-looking film critic.
Kincaid was a good choice for the interview as he not only knows Priest quite well, he has also written about him extensively (there's even a chapter on Priest in Kincaid's book What It Is We Do When We Read Science Fiction) and the two chatted comfortably and interestingly about a number of interesting topics.
Firstly, there was the issue of Priest's reaction to the 2006 film version of his novel The Prestige (1995). Interestingly, Priest seem to have blurred the two different works into one making him less sure than Kincaid about what was in the book and what was in the film. He also kept referring to the characters by the names of their actors in the film. When questioned about this, Priest amusingly replied that while he had only read the book once, he had seen the film four different times.
Priest also revealed his suspicions that Christopher Nolan (the film's director) did not actually read the book at all, relying instead upon an initial description by his brother and writing partner Jonathan Nolan. In fact, Nolan even went so far as to suggest that a) people not read the book as it would spoil the film and b) that he had changed everything in the book anyway. Which would be due to a clash of auteurship and Nolan making it absolutely clear that the film is HIS vision and nobody else's, which is arguably due to a difference in artistic culture between film and literature as writers are more open to the idea of their work being 'an interpretation' as opposed to a unique vision. If you are a cinematic auteur, I suspect that making a film about a book by a living author must be an incredibly uncomfortable position.
Priest interestingly mentioned how one particular scene had been changed, depriving a female character of agency and lumping her with an unreasonable motivation. Kincaid saw this as an example of the book's moral complexities failing to rub off of the film but Priest instead saw it as an example of film making being a more forgiving medium than a novel as a film can gloss over weak writing with good visuals and that is never an option for a writer. This struck me as a sound observation and explains a lot about why certain kinds of art house films fall into relying upon a certain kind of long-take cinematography, which is something I have touched on in a recent review.
Another rather splendid observation was the fact that Christian Bale's double in the film resembled a certain Edwardian-looking film critic.
Secondly, the talk moved on to Priest's actually literary work. Kincaid quizzed him about his interest in doubles and twins and though initially chalking the interest up to a childhood desire to have a twin, Priest then added that he was mostly interested in Twin Studies that showed astonishing similarities in the lives of twins that were separated at birth and how, for Priest, this suggested that the universe was utterly deterministic. Or at least it is for the sake of writing because apparently while one may be commited to an idea when writing a book, it does not mean that you actually think the idea itself has any truth to it.
Priest then spoke of his interest in old stealth technology and how World War I planes were made invisible to people on the ground thanks to pale blue paint and a few lights. He also spoke about world leaders having doubles and even cities having doubles so as to foil attempts at bombing during the war and how simply the mind can be utterly baffled.
Another issue, clearly dear to Kincaid's heart, was Priest's tendency to re-write his books when they are re-edited. Sometimes changing huge sections of them. Priest was unapologetic for the consternation he causes bibliographers as he sees it as a matter of craft and how, as time passes, his feelings about books change and he feels the need to update them so as to make them as good as they can possibly be. Not having read much Priest, I was only peripherally aware that he did this and it reminded me rather of the bands in William Gibson novels who updated old albums so as to fit in with current fashions.
Easily one of the better interviews I have attended. I am looking forward to next month's interview of Gwynneth Jones and October's interview of The Clute.
Priest then spoke of his interest in old stealth technology and how World War I planes were made invisible to people on the ground thanks to pale blue paint and a few lights. He also spoke about world leaders having doubles and even cities having doubles so as to foil attempts at bombing during the war and how simply the mind can be utterly baffled.
Another issue, clearly dear to Kincaid's heart, was Priest's tendency to re-write his books when they are re-edited. Sometimes changing huge sections of them. Priest was unapologetic for the consternation he causes bibliographers as he sees it as a matter of craft and how, as time passes, his feelings about books change and he feels the need to update them so as to make them as good as they can possibly be. Not having read much Priest, I was only peripherally aware that he did this and it reminded me rather of the bands in William Gibson novels who updated old albums so as to fit in with current fashions.
Easily one of the better interviews I have attended. I am looking forward to next month's interview of Gwynneth Jones and October's interview of The Clute.
Comments