Modern politics is a business that obliterates the self. It turns its winning practitioners into one-dimensional media-facing personalities schooled for the soundbite and the photo-op. Yet plenty of voters, and news outlets with gnat-sized attention spans, still hanker for glimpses of a private hinterland of tastes, preferences, even passions. The spin machine duly delivers this as a Potemkin Village of confected enthusiasm for beloved sports teams, pop stars, Hollywood movies and the like. David Cameron, for instance, was supposed to be an Aston Villa fan until, one day, he forgot the agreed script and disclosed a hitherto unsuspected devotion to West Ham United. He blamed “brain fade”.
Now take our new Prime Minister. Does he have a favourite book? Pre-election profiles suggested, unexpectedly, that he carried a flame for James Kelman’s 1989 novel A Disaffection: the Glaswegian writer’s virtuoso monologue, which voices a young teacher’s dark night of the soul. Legal colleagues have reported that the former DPP admired and absorbed Franz Kafka’s The Trial (not such a surprise). Then a cagey interview in The Guardian portrayed an opaque figure with no particular novel or poem to champion.
The Kelman salute allegedly came from Starmer’s 2020 appearance on Desert Island Discs. Listen to the episode in question, however, and you find that, in addition to his “luxury” (a football), the future PM actually picked as his reading-matter not existentialist fiction from Scotland but “a detailed atlas, hopefully with shipping lanes in it” — so that he could plan an escape. His affection for A Disaffection seems to derive from a Labour Party fundraiser in Camden in 2019, which featured a Desert Island Discs-style event.
The two lists — one for his local party comrades, the other for Radio 4 listeners — reveal other notable discrepancies. Among his musical picks, Beethoven’s Emperor concerto and Jim Reeves (a favourite of his mother’s) survive. But Starmer’s NW1-based love for Desmond Dekker’s ska classic “The Israelites” and Shostakovich’s second piano concerto — genuinely interesting choices — gave way in the BBC studio to a dismally predictable nod for the Lightning Seeds’ “Three Lions”.
So the verdict on James Kelman from 10 Downing Street remains — as with much about its new incumbent — a matter of speculation. But if Starmer does understand and appreciate the 78-year-old novelist, short-story writer and social activist, so much the better for him. An easy “gotcha” trap looms here that it would be wise to avoid. Famously, Kelman is a radical socialist and internationalist, albeit with a fiercely anti-state, even anarchistic, streak. In works such as the Booker-winning How Late It Was, How Late, he deploys the abrasive and profane vernacular of the West of Scotland to express the pain and rage of poor people crushed by overweening power. And Starmer is — well, we know what, in political if not personal terms. Kelman, whose protagonist in his latest novel inveighs against “elitist fuckers, racists, monarchists, imperialist bastards”, has over the five decades of his published work exhibited sub-zero respect for London lawyers, Labour politicians or senior UK state officials. Starmer neatly ticks each box.
So: bland centrist apparatchik loves potty-mouthed hard-Left diehard who would happily string him up with his own red tape? Let’s hold back on the sarcastic sneers for a moment. What matters is not Starmer and Kelman’s notional positions on the light-pink to deep-red spectrum, but the novelist’s rare ability to endow the inner lives of people “left behind” by money, status and power with grace, depth, even grandeur. All politicians should take heed of such a gift. Kelman is not just a polemicist and campaigner — courageous and stubborn, for instance, in his support for victims of workplace asbestosis poisoning — but a deeply serious literary artist. A disciple of modern literature’s giants of innovation in language and vision (Samuel Beckett, Franz Kafka, Albert Camus, Knut Hamsun), he invests the working-class life, thought and speech of post-industrial Scotland with all the nuance, scope and subtlety that Marcel Proust attributed to Parisian aristocrats or Virginia Woolf to the denizens of upper-bourgeois Bloomsbury.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeDirt Road and How Late it Was are two superb examples of storytelling, and the latter truly drags you in. I’ve not read his other stuff but to describe either of those as ‘unyielding Left’ is a leap. A little guy finding his own way in life (rugged individual), or one of the dispossessed being battered around by various organs of the state (wielded these days typically by those who tend Left), could as easily be interpreted as unyielding Right.
Or maybe appropriating complex stories for Left, or Right, is just plain crude and superficial. Somethings need to be appreciated on their own terms, not jammed into political categories.
A very fine essay, imo.
As a cis white hetero middle class male I occasionally feel the “lacerating emotions of humiliation and disempowerment that go with membership of despised, or sidelined, classes and communities.”
Interesting piece but not sure it’s inspired me to read any of his books.
The author clearly rates this writer strongly.
I have tried to read gritty Scottish writers but get overwhelmingly turned off after chapter two.
I thought it was just me being English, but highland friends feel the same about the strange cultural attacks that seem to come out of the lowlands and Glasgow in particular.
Everyone’s culture and speech has a right to exist; but when the existence of yours depends on the none existence of others and the glorification of lifestyles that even people caught up in them don’t enjoy, well let’s say we part company at that point.
Woody Allen must be especially prescient, having made a biopic of Starmer in 1983 when the latter was still a teenager.
Halfway though this article, I began to wonder whether it was a satire on pretentious Guardunista critics. I skimmed to the finish line.
Beautifully written tribute to Kelman.
The problem with people like Kelman is they don’t have or don’t want to have a global perspective on things. Downtrodden or marginalised people in Stalinist Russia or Maoist China ended up in labour camps or worse still dead. Growing up working class in Glasgow may have been tough, but not as tough as a large % of the global population.
Is that Boyd Tonkin’s own living room in which he is photographed? If so, it looks like that of any upper middle class writer living in NW3.
A fine essay. Kelman is right to acknowledge his huge debt to Kafka and Beckett, though it would be unfair to accuse his works of being entirely derivative, I enjoyed and admired most of his earlier work, particularly The Burn and A Chancer, through to Keiran Smith, Boy. However, as an Englishman living in Scotland, I eventually had enough of his tiresome broadsides against that lot down south and how they had taken over up here. I think Gordon Brown may well have been prime minister at the time as it happens, while much of the national media was run by Scots.
I interacted briefly with him at a book signing in Glasgow once and found him to be predictably gruff and taciturn, though I can’t be sure that this was due to my nationality.
If I encounter him again I may tell him he’s one of my favourite racist authors and see how that goes down with him.
“a deeply serious literary artist”
Nope. Just a one trick pony who’s fooled people into thinking he’s the real deal, somehow an authentic voice signifying something much bigger.
He’s not. He’s just a thrawn old foul mouthed man of no significance whatsoever who’ll be thankfully forgotten before long.
An interesting essay