But Local.
Our take
In Edward Mendelson’s insightful review of Zadie Smith’s play *The Wife of Willesden*, featured in the NYRB, he delves into a crucial theme that resonates deeply with literary enthusiasts: the importance of a clear personal voice in any literary writing. This idea not only underpins Smith's work but also echoes through various facets of contemporary literature. The play itself, a modern riff on Chaucer’s iconic Wife of Bath, serves as a prism through which we can examine the interplay between voice, identity, and the broader cultural tapestry in which these narratives are woven. As readers seeking to embrace the nuances of language and identity, we cannot overlook the implications of Smith’s exploration, especially when we consider it alongside other contemporary reflections on language, such as in Not Making Progress and After 30 days of language learning, I realized I was studying more than actually using the language.
Mendelson argues that the play’s comic and transhistorical virtuosity is not merely an artistic flourish but a vehicle for a half-concealed argument about the necessity of an authentic voice. Smith’s ability to traverse time and genre while maintaining a distinct narrative thread prompts us to consider what it means to have a voice that is both personal and universally relatable. This duality is particularly relevant in an age where the digital landscape often dilutes the richness of individual expression. As we consume a barrage of content, from social media snippets to algorithm-driven articles, the clarity of one's voice becomes a rare gem, a beacon guiding us through the din of conformity. The significance of this clarity cannot be understated; it is the very foundation upon which relatable, impactful literature is built.
Furthermore, Mendelson's focus on Smith's work also invites a broader conversation about the role of humor in literature as a means of social commentary. Humor has a unique capacity to disarm, allowing readers to engage with difficult subjects under the guise of laughter. Smith’s play exemplifies this as it invites audiences to confront historical and contemporary issues through a comedic lens. In doing so, it not only entertains but also provokes thought, challenging us to reconsider our assumptions and biases. This technique is not just a hallmark of Smith's writing but a fundamental component of literary discourse that encourages us to reflect on our own narratives. It’s a reminder that laughter can coexist with serious reflection, and, indeed, it often enhances our understanding of complex themes.
As we navigate through the literary landscape, the question arises: how do we cultivate our personal voices amidst a cacophony of influences? Smith’s *The Wife of Willesden* serves as an invitation to embrace our unique perspectives while engaging with the rich tapestry of literary history. In a world that increasingly values authenticity, the challenge lies in not only finding our voices but also ensuring they resonate with clarity and purpose. This calls to mind the broader significance of voice in the writing community, particularly as writers grapple with the pressures of conformity in a digital age where the loudest voices often drown out the quieter, nuanced ones.
Looking ahead, we must ask ourselves how we can foster environments—both in writing and literary criticism—that celebrate and amplify diverse voices. As readers and writers, we have a shared responsibility to champion authenticity and clarity, creating spaces where every voice can be heard and appreciated. In doing so, we can ensure that the literary conversations of tomorrow are rich, varied, and profoundly reflective of the multifaceted human experience. What will our collective voices sound like in this evolving narrative? Only time will tell, but the journey toward clarity begins with each of us.
I enjoyed all of Edward Mendelson’s NYRB review (archived) of Zadie Smith’s play The Wife of Willesden (a riff on Chaucer’s Wife of Bath); here I will excerpt a section on a topic dear to my heart, the importance of a clear personal voice in any literary writing:
The play’s comic and transhistorical virtuosity arises in part from a half-concealed argument—which Smith makes everywhere in her work—about the moral significance of a personal voice. “From the moment Alyson opens her mouth” in The Canterbury Tales, Smith recalls in her introduction,
I knew that she was speaking to me, and that she was a Kilburn girl at heart…. Alyson’s voice—brash, honest, cheeky, salacious, outrageous, unapologetic—is one I’ve heard and loved all my life: in the flats, at school, in the playgrounds of my childhood and then the pubs of my maturity, at bus stops, in shops, and of course up and down the Kilburn High Road, any day of the week. The words may be different but the spirit is the same.
Like everyone in the modern world, Alvita constructs her voice by amalgamating scraps and fragments of other voices into something uniquely her own. A stage direction reports: “Her accent is North Weezy [i.e., Northwest London] with moments of deliberate poshness as well as frequent lapses into Jamaican patois and cockney for comic effect.” In one of the paradoxes of personhood, Alvita becomes herself by containing multitudes, which is what makes possible her connection across the centuries with the unique voice and spirit of Chaucer’s Alyson.
“Voice,” for Smith, is a word of power, something like a secular analogue of the sacred logos, the word that created the world. A voice can be true or false, and one person can speak with many voices. A true voice, in Smith’s world, speaks in the first person and can’t be mistaken for anyone else. A false voice speaks impersonally and sounds like anyone. Almost everything Smith writes makes a contrast between someone’s personal voice and the impersonality of all collective voices. Virginia Woolf, reviewing Hemingway in 1927, described people who speak in a fashionable slang—people “of an unreal type”—as seeming “much at their ease, and yet if we look at them a little from the shadow not at their ease at all, and, indeed, terribly afraid of being themselves, or they would say things simply in their natural voices.”
Repeatedly, the decisive moments in Smith’s novels occur when her characters become brave enough to speak in their natural voices. A stage direction in The Wife of Willesden describes personal voices and dictions bringing together self, speech, and truth:
We are surprised to find the women with the deepest thoughts are people we’ve hardly noticed up to now…. They all now stand to speak, and with an intensity that changes the atmosphere in the pub. They speak in their natural accents…but the words themselves seem to come from a transnational sacred text of rights and duties. These women are bearing witness to a truth.
The human being is, in Aristotle’s phrase, a social animal. Smith’s play, like much of her fiction, celebrates the collectivity that emerges among human beings who share a sense of place. In “The General Lock-In,” the framing scene at the start of the play that substitutes for Chaucer’s “General Prologue,” a character identified in the dramatis personae as the Author (“a brown woman in a headwrap”) sits in a quiet corner with her laptop and recalls:
We had all types of people in that night,
Young and old, rich and poor, black, brown and white—
But local: students, merchants, a bailiff,
People from church, temple, mosque, shul.“But local.” The shared experience of something local has the effect of nurturing individual voices. Most of the play rewrites Chaucer, but Smith’s voice is what it speaks with throughout, and as in all her work a voice can bear witness to something “transnational” only by speaking in its local accent.
That’s why I love reading Smith even when her novels aren’t up to her highest standard — her voice is always clear, convincing, and enjoyable. And that’s one of my favorite things about Russian literature, which places such a high value on exactly that; cf. Val Vinokur on “translating marked voices” (“So I try to keep that awkwardness, that it sounds both idiomatic and idiosyncratic at the same time, really”) and Eagleton on Bakhtin (“The enemy is what Bakhtin dubs ‘monologism’, meaning the kind of meta-language which seeks to subdue this irrepressible heterogeneity”). Vive la différance!
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience