The Guardian's review of Tintin and the Secret of Literature continues to whet our appetite for this title, which we understand is en route. (That's always the way, isn't it? A hundred titles sitting around that haven't been checked out yet and the one we're obssessed with is the one we don't have yet.)
The first question McCarthy poses has to do with Tintin's standing in literature: 'Should we, when we read the Tintin books, treat them with the reverence we would afford to Shakespeare, Dickens, Rabelais?' To which his answer is no. Although they create 'a huge social tableau ... managed with all the subtlety normally attributed to Jane Austen and Henry James' and 'a huge symbolic register worthy of a Bronte or a Faulkner', we should set them apart from literature. In the median space between drawing and writing, Herge, we are told, was achieving something entirely different.
One of the remarkable strengths of Tintin, McCarthy explains, is that 'within a simple medium for children is a mastery of plot and symbol, theme and subtext far superior to that displayed by most "real" novelists. If you want to be a writer,' he says, 'study The Castafiore Emerald' (his favourite of the series). 'It holds all of literature's formal keys, its trade secrets.'
Now that's an odd choice - we've always considered The Castafiore Emerald to be a real low point of the series, especially given its proximity to the vastly superrior The Calculus Affair. But we're looking forward to devling more deeply into McCarthy's arguments and reporting back to you.
Comments