The Pornographer 
by John McGahern.
Faber, 252 pp., £4.95
Show More
Show More

William Styron is reported as defending the sexual activity in his recent Sophie’s Choice on the grounds that ‘the battle to write explicitly about sex was fought long and hard. We must never begin to surrender that victory.’ The argument strikes one as considerably less silly when removed to the context of John McGahern’s fiction.

One may never know why the narrator of McGahern’s new novel chooses to write pornography for a Dublin magazine – one may never quite believe that such a decent sad fellow would so choose – but, such is the prevalent gloom, one is able to believe that pornography does serve some useful purpose. (A dangerous line of thought: it might lead one to wonder whether Ireland didn’t need the IRA.) It is in part, of course, the narrator’s wretchedness that allays our disapproval: at least he isn’t enjoying it. And also – McGahern seems to be running a risk here – the possibility that the samples given of the narrator’s art hold a greater vitality than the rest of the novel.

‘Our average reader,’ says Maloney, the magazine’s editor and a failed poet who doesn’t much believe in poetic effects, ‘is already so inflamed that he or she would get a rise out of a green tree in Gethsemane.’ To be thus inflamed implies a remarkable degree of frustration. ‘One of the reasons of art’s supremacy,’ Maloney explains, ‘is just because of the very limitations of life.’ He is regretting that he lacks the constitution to live up to Colonel Grimshaw. Mavis Carmichael and the Colonel form the narrator’s dramatis personae, the ideal coupling-couple of ‘straight’ porn: gorgeous soft mounds, stiff pink nipples and remorseless throbs, and to be distinguished from the ‘new pornography’ of polar bears, decapitators and sword-swallowers. They do it here, in the next instalment they do it there, they do it everywhere, with enormous gusto and unhampered by what Maloney terms ‘life’s unseemly infirmities’. Age does not wither them nor custom stale their less than infinite variety – and, considering what nastinesses happen in real life, the holy priests might be prepared, if not to bless them, at least to refrain from cursing them. In The Dark, McGahern’s second novel, the growing boy had only an ad torn from a newspaper (‘Remove Superfluous Hair’) to facilitate his sexual fantasies.

In real life the narrator starts an affair with a 38-year-old near-virgin, ex-Legion of Mary, who like all good Irishwomen has marriage in mind. He meets her at a dance, ‘like most of Ireland meets’. She too works for a magazine, a different kettle of fish called Waterways, for barge-buffs, and the two of them spend a weekend on a boat on the Shannon. Subsequently the narrator (it wouldn’t hurt and it would certainly help reviewers if the author would give his characters names) uses the trip for one of his stories, ‘Mavis and the Colonel Take a Trip on the Shannon’. Mavis and the Colonel have a jolly good time, and the porn version has the funniest crack in the book: the Colonel asks the boatman if he feels like an aphrodisiac and he replies: ‘To tell you the truth, I never sooner one drink more than another.’ The real-life version is less rewarding: the narrator’s woman-friend is averse to condoms, and gets pregnant. Such things happen in real life, at any rate in Ireland. Whiskey, High Mass, palais de danse, condoms, backs of cars, fear of pregnancy – McGahern’s Ireland will remind older readers of England in the 1930s, except perhaps for the High Mass, the whiskey and the backs of cars.

Rather more life-enhancing than the story of the narrator’s affair (she wants marriage more than ever, he wants marriage with her less than ever) is the interwoven account of his aunt, who is slowly dying but fighting valiantly, and whom he does truly appear to love. The one aspect of real life we can hope to admire, it seems, is its ending, real death, faced bravely. The narrator himself attributes his melancholy to a lost love, but we see that he can only want what he cannot have. ‘When I had loved, it had been the uncertainty, the immanence of No that raised the love to fever.’ The certainty, the immanence of Yes, turn him off. When the woman tells him in her innocent way, ‘I love you. I often cried out for you … I want to eat and drink you,’ he shudders away in distaste. ‘I thought nobody could tell anybody that, and I listened to the loud street.’ This fastidiousness does not deter him from some fancy prose in his own thoughts: ‘I willed all sense down to living in her wetness like in a wound.’

This isn’t the Great Hunger, and with lashings of good food and drink around – to go no further – it is hard to see why McGahern’s hero is so relentlessly miserable. The woman not unnaturally blames his lack of feeling on ‘writing that pornography stuff’, but the porn is more an effect than a cause. He carries a ‘verbal scapular’ – what is a freethinker doing with that metaphor? – in his mind: ‘Everybody must feel that a man who hates any person hates that person the more for troubling him with expressions of love.’ When people have nothing to complain about except being loved by someone they don’t love, they are lucky. When people have nothing worse to complain about than the famous human condition – we are born, the days go by, we die – they are still not too badly off. The hero’s enervation is almost comic on occasion. He summons up a picture of visits to relatives in the country – smiles of surprise and delight, sweet medley of hypocrisy, tea and talk, relieved departure, ensuing criticism by each family of the other – simply to tell us that such boring practices are ‘the way we define and reassert ourselves, rejecting those foreign bodies as we sharpen and restore our sense of self’.

But perhaps the sense of self is never sufficient, the roles never so secure as with Mavis and the Colonel. Perhaps what is missing is simply religious faith – which the Irish, always having had more of, always miss more than the rest of us. Cradle atheists though they may be, they inherit loss of belief like original sin: what they don’t have is the biggest thing they have. Religion still has its great uses. In a story in McGahern’s previous book, Getting Through, a priest is attracted to the priesthood ‘as a way of vanquishing death and avoiding birth’.

So pornography is a way of avoiding birth? And likewise of vanquishing the other ‘unseemly infirmities’? One may wish McGahern’s characters could be, if not less miserable, more explicit about their misery. His prose might be more helpful in this respect if it were a little less poetic. But perhaps it would all be less Irish then, for it seems that the comic Stage Irishman of the old days has yielded to a tragic one, and instead of laughing with foreign jaws we outsiders now cry with foreign eyes. At all events, a sense of genuine if not surely explicable sorrow wins through, and a conviction (rather surprising in the circumstances) of purity of intention. For that reason The Pornographer reminded me of Sean O’Faoláin’s touching novel of 1936, Bird Alone. Permissiveness has boomed since then, happiness is as scarce as ever. There the young man fought the Church and lost his girl to guilt and suicide. Here the Church has fled the field, and the young man is fighting a trickier enemy – one more difficult to define. At the close he has taken up with another girl, a nurse, who thinks life is sweet: ‘Just to see the day and the sky and the night seems to me amazing. I can’t imagine anybody wanting to let that go.’ Possibly he will marry her and go to live in the country. Possibly he will give up Mavis and the Colonel. Possibly not, for those people were some sort of a solution.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.


Vol. 1 No. 3 · 22 November 1979

SIR: As a common reader with the usual limited book-purchasing power, I read with anticipation D.J. Enright’s review of John McGahern’s latest novel, The Pornographer, in your last issue (LRB, 8 November). McGahern’s previous work, The Leavetaking, had impressed me as second only to Sons and Lovers in its ability to transmit childhood memory. I am indebted to Mr Enright for the knowledge that women in real life get pregnant from intercourse, especially in Ireland; that the distinction between the old porn and the new is that of ‘soft mounds’ versus ‘polar bears’ (sic); that what the Irish don’t have is the biggest thing they have; and finally, but by no means least valuably, that happiness, current permissiveness notwithstanding, is as scarce as ever. I was further gratified to learn that the writing of pornography may either shed light on the necessity of the IRA or, at worst, be a partial solution to (life’s?) problems. I was perplexed at Mr Enright’s dismissal of the book’s prose as ‘poetic’ and at his inexplicable aversion to melancholy characters, especially those without names. But no matter. What I missed, however, was any attempt at divining the author’s intentions, or providing a yardstick for his achievement which the reader might share. At the end, I was uncertain whether my £4.95 would be better spent on this novel or a performance of No Sex, Please—We’re British.

Ann Geneva
London NW8

SIR: D.J. Enright has a lot of good fun with the thought that John McGahern’s new novel exhibits a hero who is ‘relentlessly miserable’, though the Ireland he lives in affords plenty to eat and drink. But people are often miserable, and there’s a literature to show, together with much in the way of other evidence, that Irish people, perhaps, are especially miserable. Their misery may even be a factor that helps to account for what they have been doing to each other, North and South, in the last few years. Then again, Mr Enright’s good fun has a touch of that English indifference which may be another factor of the same kind.

Mr Enright writes in the course of his review:

When the woman tells him in her innocent way, ‘I love you. I often cried out for you … I want to eat and drink you,’ he shudders away in distaste. ‘I thought nobody could tell anybody that, and I listened to the loud street.’

A knowledge of McGahern’s previous fictions suggests that the words which describe the man’s miserable response might read, in their full context, rather strongly. These fictions have something to communicate about what certain people cannot say, and cannot do, and about more than one variety of hunger. This is not to deny that Mr Enright could well have a point when he adds that the man’s ‘fastidiousness does not deter him from some fancy prose in his own thoughts: “I willed all sense down to living in her wetness like in a wound."’

James Darke
London SW10

send letters to

The Editor
London Review of Books
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address and a telephone number

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.

Newsletter Preferences