Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #3177 in Books
• Published on: 2006-07-06
• Binding: Paperback
• 464 pages

Synopsis
Set in New England mainly and London partly, "On Beauty" concerns a pair of feuding families - the Belseys and the Kipps - and a clutch of doomed affairs. It puts low morals among high ideals and asks some searching questions about what life does to love. For the Belseys and the Kipps, the confusions - both personal and political - of our uncertain age are about to be brought close to home: right to the heart of family.

Customer Reviews

BORING
I struggled with this book and only managed one and a half chapters. It bored me and I couldnt connect with the characters. I think this book was undeservedly hyped up!

[ Haiti ] this wretched, blood-stained little island a mere hour's boat trip from Florida...
Henri Bergson wrote that laughter (unconsciously and sometimes immorally) pursues a utilitarian aim of general improvement. That is, laughter performs a social function, and for the greater good. I was thinking of this when I noticed some adverse comment around the following sentence,

"For Monty, though, Carlene wanted to get something `really nice', and so they decided to brave three blocks of snow-walking in order to reach a fancier, smaller, specialist boutique that might have the cane with the carved handle which that Carlene had in mind." (p.266, hardback)

I can do two things here. First, to correct the grammar. Second, to speculate why the original text as printed is, in fact, intentional on Zadie Smith's part

GRAMMAR
There is much debate over the correct usage of the pronouns `that' and `which' in relative clauses. Nevertheless, as a general rule for formal English, where a clause is restrictive (ie, the semantics of the sentence are affected by removing the clause), `that' should be used. And, where a clause is non-restrictive (ie, the semantics of the sentence are not affected by removing the clause), `which' should be used and the clause introduced by a comma

In the text quoted above, there are two significant relative clauses - i) "[ in order to reach a ] specialist boutique that might have the cane with the carved handle", and ii) "the carved handle which that Carlene had in mind". In case i), `that' is the appropriate pronoun where the speciality of the boutique is indeed canes with carved handles. However, later in the text, it is revealed that the boutique sells canes, and monogrammed handkerchiefs, and dreadful cravats. Therefore, the speciality of the boutique is not canes with carved handles but a range of high value goods to which (presumably) the boutique adds its particular cachet - like Liberty on Regent Street, for example. Following this rule, the semantics of the sentence are not changed by removing the relative clause - Carlene and Kiki brave three blocks of snow-walking in order to reach a fancier, smaller, specialist boutique. Therefore, the relative clause is non-restrictive and the appropriate pronoun is `which' preceded by a comma. By the by, this resolves also a problem I have with usage of `that' with modal auxiliaries that express doubt (might, may, could, should, etc), although I may be out on a limb here

In case ii), Zadie Smith has deployed both relative pronouns serially leaving the reader (or her editor) to choose. In this case, it is only by qualifying "the cane with the carved handle" with the fact that the cane with the carved handle is what Carlene has in mind that the statement makes sense. The cane with the carved handle has not been mentioned earlier in the text and needs specification at this point. Therefore, this is a restrictive clause and the appropriate pronoun is `that'

To satisfy the norms of formal English, the text should read as follows,

"... and so they decided to brave three blocks of snow-walking in order to reach a fancier, smaller, specialist boutique, which might have the cane with the carved handle that Carlene had in mind."

But, it doesn't. And there's a reason for that

INTENTIONALITY
Here, I speculate Zadie Smith's intention in delivering the quoted sentence as it is, and resisting any attempt by her editors to change it. There are two clues. First, earlier in the novel, the earnest lexophile Jack French's particular attachment to Henry Watson Fowler has been described. It is Fowler, in his Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926), who first legitimises the interchangeability of `that' and `which' (without comma) in restrictive relative clauses. Thus, creating the confusion that persists down to Zadie Smith's own generation - a confusion that Zadie Smith artfully satirises by getting the grammar as wrong as it could possibly be. The second clue is delivered with the delicate insertion of the word "cravat" (rather than tie) when describing Carlene's purchases - "... and then the most dreadful cravat" (p.268, hardback). The word cravat is of French derivation (as in Jack French, a repeated joke throughout the novel) but, much more interestingly, services a multi-layered paronomasia which (I think) reveals the depth and complexity of Zadie Smith's genius as a writer and thinker

It works like this. The mingling of terms from multiple languages (eg, cravat for tie, French and Jack French) and, indeed, the mangling of formal language (eg, "the cane with the carved handle which that Carlene had in mind") to produce comic effect is termed traditionally macaronic (from macaroni, probably from same root as maceration). And, Macaronis was the term used to identify the generation of mid-eighteenth century young dandies who returned from the Grand Tour with a macaronic grab-bag of Continental affectations. One of which, indeed, was the small cravat - the forerunner of the modern tie

Thus it is that, with extraordinary deftness, Zadie Smith fashions a web of satiric filaments that ensnare the unwary reader just as they coruscate, startle and amaze. And it is through this interweaving of semantic and syntactic games that she achieves the rupture of what Henri Bergson termed mechanical inelasticity - that is, the thing that makes us less human, and against which laughter offers a social sanction

A fitting homage
As someone who has long claimed Howards End to be her favourite book I was keen to read this and I was not disappointed. Zadie Smith has brought Forster's story of relationships and doomed affairs between social classes right up to date and given us a rollicking story with believable characters and situations which at times made me laugh out loud. The references to Howards End are cleverly and sensitively done and I shall be recommending this to all my friends.