Debate continues ...

More hot talk as the 'debate' over Scottish Literature continued with words from Stuart Kelly, in response to Alan Bisset's blog.


The canon will roar in classic clash of the publishing titans
Stuart Kelly
Scotland on Sunday, December 17th

AS 2006 draws to a close, and the Pick of the Year log-rolling and back-slapping fade to a distant memory, the Browser's eyes turn to the New Year, and the advance hype about what will be the titles to watch in 2007.

I can confidently predict a rush of wunderkinden, some weighty tomes by established names, which will receive "height of powers" and "over the hill" reviews in equal measure, a surprise non-fiction bestseller and a spat over the Man Booker Prize. It's August, however, that looks most interesting.

Random House has announced 20 titles, including a book about an orphan lured into crime and abused by the establishment by "Charles", a maths-and-meanings drugs fantasy with a prepubescent heroine by "Lewis", a tragic rural love triangle with incestuous overtones by "George", and a lad-lit extravaganza of bonking and boozing by "Henry". Or, in other words, Dickens' Oliver Twist, Carroll's Alice In Wonderland, Eliot's The Mill On The Floss and Fielding's Tom Jones.

Random has set its sights on the lucrative classics market, which at present is dominated by Penguin, which has 65% of the market share. By Christmas next year, Random House intends to have 50 titles, and promises half a dozen or so each month for the next five years.

It's a smart move - no pesky royalty payments for most of the authors, for one thing - and the recent success of Headline Review's "chick-lit" style rebranding of Jane Austen shows that there are ways to build new audiences for literary greats.

There's another, more self-interested reason: Random House wants to 'protect' its contemporary authors from drifting into the Penguin Classics range as they leave copyright.

Already, the Vintage division has been releasing as "future classics" successful titles such as Audrey Niffenegger's The Time Traveller's Wife. It will be interesting to see how this clash of the titans shapes up.

And while it's easy to see why Random House would be keen for a slice of the "costume drama" classics - all the ones yet to be adapted by Andrew Davies or star Keira Knightley - I hope they'll also look at the more esoteric titles. Penguin is pushing hard to release African, Arabic, Indian and Eastern titles. Will Random House expand its already considerable commitment to Chinese and Japanese authors?

Hunting of the snark

I am, apparently, a snark. I should explain: I recently participated in a debate for Product magazine, about Scottish literature and criticism, with Professor Willy Maley of Glasgow University. And a merry old ding-dong we had, as befits a fair and frank exchange of views between professionals.

I was therefore a little surprised to see a rather partial account of it on the blog of a young writer called Alan Bissett. Most of his blogs revolve around the perfidy of critics - the old "any opinion as long as its good" conundrum. I am not only a snark, but a jeer-leader, and the bad cop, and presumably when I'm not reviewing books I'm pulling the wings off flies and telling children the truth about Father Christmas. A stark contrast to the "sheer delight in writers" which Bissett attributes to Maley.

For the record, Bissett teaches on the Glasgow Creative Writing course, the co-founder of which is Professor Maley; and even dedicated his latest anthology, Outside Of A Dog, to his boss ("a scholar and a gentleman"). Apparently critics are supposed to provide "Legal Aid" for writers. So I suppose I should clarify what the Book Pages are not: an extension of the marketing departments of publishers or, for that matter, creative writing courses.

-------------------------------------------------

Alan Bissett, Glasgow / 5:39pm 17 Dec 2006

I should point out that I did not dedicate Outside of a Dog to Willy Maley, nor call him 'a gentleman and a scholar', but the students - who put the anthology together and merely asked me to write the introduction - did. Nor is Willy Maley my boss. The convener of the Creative Writing MLitt is Professor Michael Schmidt.

Shall we call this a 'partial account' of my 'partial account'?

Trailer Mash

This is something I've dreamed about doing since I was a kid: cutting up classic movies and reimagining them. For a while I kept a list of great falls in movies. Off the top of my head I always remember Carrie telekinising the kid who name calls at her off his bike next to a tree. Then there was the trailer for the movie with all the Beatles covers for the soundtrack. It starred Sean Penn and was called I am Sam. I never saw it but have the soundtrack and remember the trailer because he does this hilarious slip and fall going down a hospital corridor. Anyway, it was my dream to splice together a montage of great slipps and falls in movies to some unforgettable piece of music. I never could fix on what should be played.

Anyway, this website called The Trailer Mash reimagines movies by making up a new trailer spliced together with other movies. I just watched The Shining reimagined as a romantic comedy. Next up is Lord of the Rings - Transformers.

Glen Baxter

Love-hatE

As a Scot, I have a love/hate relationship with the country. And as a Scottish writer, I have a love/hate relationship with its literature.

I read the Kelly-Maley debate in full and posted it without critique or analysis, the reason being it all hit so close to home I had no idea where to start.

My gut reaction to a lot of the praise for recent Scottish writing has been to cringe (sorry Maley). But I believe a major reason for this is the personal dilemma regarding my own (Scottish) writing, and the jealousy over other writers' publication success.

Somehow we are all shamed and feel guilty about our backgrounds. I have this in spades, especially as a writer.

So far I have avoided the issue by simply not writing about Scotland. A few years ago I was unable to even lift a Scottish book, skipping Louise Welsh and giving Anne Donovan an extremely wide berth.

While studying for the M.Litt in Creative Writing at Glasgow University I purposefully avoided Scottishness in all my writing, and cringed at the Scottishness coming at me from all the other students. I couldn't stand it. I realise now I was paralysed by the idea of writing about something close to home.

Instead I attempted to write an American novel about California. I finished it, but it wasn't real. [Read an extract at Glasgow Seeker.com]

Once out of Scotland and living in Thailand, where I taught English, I began to write again. Still America, but this time about a young teacher. Ahh, something closer to home.

Now that I'm resident in New Zealand, Scotland feels closer than ever. I recently read The Cutting Room [perfect for film, stripped down like a screenplay, a lot like my recent writing] and devoured Robin Jenkins' The Changeling [The Cone Gatherers is my favourite of his]. Amazing how getting some distance from things allows you to breathe again.

Scotland has a proud literary history - Burns, Stevenson, Scott, Hogg, MacDiarmid, Trocchi, Kelman, Gray, Spark, Welsh, Warner - and like our national football team, we will gladly sing its praises after a few drinks among company, but as soon as the print media becomes involved, it's all back-slapping and stabbing, a rather murky affair.

My reason for cringing at a lot of the praise is personal: I can't stand the chest-thumping that comes from journalists; as an unpublished novelist I have plenty of selfish jealousy, an inordinate amount of novelists have come from the M.Litt course I studied on; I have a deep-rooted Scottish shame ('who cares?' I ask myself, 'who wants to read about Scotland?'); and there is something sad in the ever-increasing somnambulistic style of book buying from high street chain stores after reading someone else's opinion.

But there's no doubt, more Scottish writers are being published than ever before. Does that mean the literature is in a golden age?

We're Scottish, we don't know how to handle success.

The snarks and believers battling over Scottish letters

Another ex-tutor of mine, Alan Bissett, has been writing a book blog for Guardian Unlimited. He has generated some interesting debate, primarily around use of the vernacular and working-class writing. I should have known he would comment on Willy Maley's (his colleague) debate on the Golden Age of Scottish Literature.

-------------------------------------------

Alan Bissett

December 11, 2006 11:38 AM

Guardian Unlimited: Arts Blog

Is Scotland going through a golden literary age? It all depends on whom you listen to.

Far be it for me to wade into another spat, but it's stuff like this that keeps the literary world interesting. The protagonists this time are Professor Willy Maley of the University of Glasgow and Stuart Kelly, literary editor of Scotland on Sunday. Regular readers will note my suspicion for reviewers, critics and academics (so much sound and fury, as Shakespeare wrote, signifying nothing), but when they disagree as vehemently as these gents, my antennae sense real ideological difference. This is always political, thus worth noticing, whatever its guise.

The recent case of Rachel Cooke v Susan Hill over blogging was, to me, an argument about democracy, not one about "standards", and a similar divide exists in Maley and Kelly's feud. They slug it out in the new issue of Product, Scotland's finest - if most peripatetic - arts and politics magazine, over the oft-repeated claim that Scottish literature is going through a "golden age". Maley is the cheerleader; Kelly the jeerleader. For Kelly, Scottish writers "need a high bar, a rigorous scepticism that won't wallow in hype, but judiciously examine our claims to greatness". For Maley, "Scottish writing has been judged excellent at the bar of international opinion, despite wing-clipping at home by carping culture-vultures."

Maley's is a slightly different version of an appeal by the American writer and critic, Heidi Julavits, in The Believer, about the standard being set so high by critics that only carping and snarking takes place, instead of sheer delight in writers attempting serious fiction. In this context, Kelly is a Snark, Maley a Believer. Both feel they are best serving art. Maley's good cop is proud of Scottish writers' achievements; Kelly's bad cop demands ever-greater proof of the success. For those uninterested in Scottish letters (actually, aren't you what the debate's about?) this is a similar discussion to that which surrounds English writers' perceived failure to compete with the American novel.

We must be careful when examining national literatures though, especially from within that nation. All appeals to the sanctity of a nation - whether saluting the flag or cheering the football team - are preparations for the mindset of war. And art is not war. But Maley is defending the national culture against the national cringe, and Kelly seems to represent for him those Scots at pains to see only their country's shortcomings. It's a familiar exchange in Scottish life. The charge of "parochial" comes from those who declare themselves "cosmopolitan", except that one man's "parochialism" is another's cultural protectionism, and one man's "cosmopolitan" is another's hatred of the homeland. What Kelly doesn't recognise is that Scottish writers just can't exist on a level trans-national field. If Alasdair Gray's Lanark were set in New York instead of Glasgow, it would often be mentioned in the same breath as DeLillo's Underworld. The news from Scotland, a post-industrial outpost of a faded empire, simply cannot seem as important as reports from the vast, engorged heart of the new one. Yet when I go abroad people often ask, "Who are the Scottish writers to read?" ("besides Irvine Welsh," they usually add, but that's another blog. What are we supposed to say? I'm sorry, but there aren't any as good as Thomas Pynchon?

Scepticism is a healthy intellectual trait, but if Scots won't champion Scottish literature, who will? The Danes? It's one thing to claim that the final arbiter has to be international (though I personally think the opinions of school students in Dundee as valid as those of some global "council"), but if that court isn't even aware of our works - because our critics don't provide Legal Aid to our writers - then we face the death of regional literatures, and a critical establishment open to only the most glamorous clients.

Golden Age Rage

During my first year of study for the M.Litt in Creative Writing at Glasgow University the programme was run by the giants of Scottish Literature James Kelman, Alasdair Gray and Tom Leonard. It was a year of humbling and wonder.

The following year Professor Willy Maley returned from a sabbatical and immediately there was a wind of change. He is an exciting and excited character, deliciously interested in literature. I remember him bubbling with enthusiasm as he let slip the title to a recent piece of literary criticism he had written: From T.S Elliot to Missy Elliot. He brought a much greater sense of possibility to me. Rooting writing firmly in whatever context or background one may find themself in.

Below is a sample of the way Willy Mayley's debates soon descend and swoop.

‘Golden Age Rage: Is the Claimed Renaissance in Scottish Literature Real?’, (an exchange of views between Stuart Kelly, Literary Editor of Scotland on Sunday, and Willy Maley), Product: Over the Counter Culture 11, The Modern Myths Issue (Winter 2006-7), pp. 36-41, ISSN 1468-9901.

“In a small country, the nest of genius is well hidden” (Dubravka Ugresic).

Dear Stuart

The quotation chosen by Chris Small to open our exchange makes me uneasy. I’m suspicious of the notion of “genius”, nesting or otherwise, unsure too as to why it should be more “hidden” in a small country. For some reason I’m reminded of the Irn-Bru 32 cuckoo with its cry of “Wakey-Wakey!” Or worse still, the Dead Parrot sketch. Before I take flight, I want to follow that quotation with a more grounded comment from James Kelman: “Good art is usually dissent; I want to be involved in creating good art”. I like this, not just because it’s by a Scottish writer, and roots our discussion in the small country we live and work in, but because it raises the issue of dissent, whereas Ugresic implies we can all agree on what constitutes genius – or greatness – once we find its nesting-place. I might stretch it and say: “Good criticism is usually dissent; I want to be involved in creating good criticism”. We’re not birds of a feather, you and I, so I expect by the end of this we’ll have agreed to disagree. Genius aside, I don’t believe we can come to a consensus over what makes – or breaks – a “good” writer, precisely because good writing, like good criticism, is all about “dissensus”, to borrow a term from African American critic Cornel West. Does “good” writing in Scotland get the criticism it deserves? Or do cuckoo critics evict fledgling geniuses from the nest, in the interests of feathering their own?

Willy

Dear Willy

Well, I’m also discomfited by the notion of ‘genius’, but for reasons we’ll come on to in due course. It rather perplexes me that, in order to advance the claim that “good criticism is usually dissent”, you appeal to the authority of James Kelman. Surely, following that logic, you should dissent from dissent itself?

But, to the questions with which you end your opening salvo: “Does “good” writing in Scotland get the criticism it deserves? Or do cuckoo critics evict fledgling geniuses from the nest, in the interests of feathering their own?”

Taking the first question, I’m glad you put good in ironic, finger-twitching quotation marks. I think the point of this debate is to analyse what we mean by good, since there is a veritable tintinnabulation of critics, arts bureaucrats and writers chorusing that we live in a Golden Age of Caledonian Letters. My position is clear: our contemporary writers might not get what they want, but they should get what they need. A high bar. A rigorous scepticism that won’t wallow in hype, but judiciously examine our big claims to greatness in a little world.

In terms of question two, I don’t really understand what you are implying, particularly since you use a term of which you’ve already said you’re suspicious. To call critics cuckoos also seems problematic: the cuckoo, notoriously, doesn’t make its own nest. It is an interloper, a con-artist, a deceiver, an exploiter. It doesn’t really chime with the idea of a “professional dissenter”. You propose the ideal critic as a persistent nay-sayer to a nebulous, conspiratorial consensus, and then figure the critic as a bloated impostor who mimics the writer for his or her own advantage.

To Chris’s questio n. I’m sure we agree that Scotland is a small country. I take Ugrasic’s quotation as meaning that genius is rare and takes subtlety to discover, especially in small countries, where the necessity of advocating cultural uniqueness might mean that a great deal of local literature makes claims to being of global importance. Or to put it another way: is Kelman or Lochhead or Gray as good as Gunter Grass, or Ngugi wa Thiong’o, or Thomas Pynchon? The question of greatness will haunt this debate: once you declare your own aesthetic agenda (I have mine), we might be able to argue, rather than swirl in the mire of agreeing to disagree.

To quote Breyten Breytenbach, might we find uncitizens of Scotland who are “defined... not so much by what they oppose or even reject? [Who] ventured into zones where truths no longer fit snugly and where certainties do not overlap”?

Stuart

Dear Stuart

It’s good to squawk, and ruffle feathers. First off, I never “appeal[ed] to the authority of James Kelman”. I quoted him. And I do dissent if his notion of “dissent” implies writing of a particular political persuasion. I’ve never subscribed to Sartre’s idea that “The art of prose is bound up with the only regime in which prose has meaning, democracy”. Literary art is edgiest when bound up with tyranny. Bad politics produces good writing, as anyone familiar with Yeats’s “Leda and the Swan” knows. Conor Cruise O’Brien asked of it: “How can that political ugly duckling be turned into this glorious Swan?” All my geese aren’t swans. Accusing me of envisaging “a nebulous, conspiratorial consensus”, you invoke a conspiracy of “a veritable tintinnabulation of critics, arts bureaucrats and writers chorusing that we live in a Golden Age of Caledonian Letters”. If such a chorus exists, this Don isn’t part of it. I experience Golden Age Rage too.

Stuart, your argument perplexes me. You’re “sure we agree that Scotland is a small country”. Granted. You “take Ugresic’s quotation as meaning that genius is rare and takes subtlety to discover, especially in small countries, where the necessity of advocating cultural uniqueness might mean that a great deal of local literature makes claims to being of global importance”. I’d dispute your extrapolation. If that’s what Ugresic means, I don’t agree with her either. You then “put it another way” and ask: “Is Kelman or Lochhead or Gray as good as Gunter Grass, or Ngugi wa Thiong’o, or Thomas Pynchon?” Now you’ve lost me. You speak “especially” of “small countries”, then invoke Germany, Kenya, and America.

If you’re making serious comparisons, the artist formerly known as James Ngugi comes closest to Kelman. Ngugi writes in English and Gikuyu, Kelman in English and Scots. Both are “committed” writers. Ngugi got the idea for his last English novel, Petals of Blood, travelling north from Leeds to Inverness in the late 1960s, wondering what it would be like to introduce capitalist modernity to remote parts. Scotland inspires great writers as well as producing them.

You say: “The question of greatness will haunt this debate: once you declare your own aesthetic agenda (I have mine), we might be able to argue, rather than swirl in the mire of agreeing to disagree.” Swirl in the mire”? “Wallow in hype”. Stuart, you need an editor. Declare your “aesthetic agenda” and be damned. I’m open to all kinds of writing. I’ve no hidden aesthetic agenda. My bar’s not high but broad. I like the Breytenbach quote – that prominent Afrikaans writer who took French citizenship knows the pitfalls of prejudice. Our own Republic of Letters exists within a larger monarchy where citizens are subjects. I like close comparisons. Closer than Ugresic’s Croatia or Breytenbach’s South Africa is Irish writer Eavan Boland’s question: “What is this thing – a nation – that is so powerful it can make songs, attract sacrifice and so exclusive it drives into hiding the complex and skeptical ideas which would serve it best?”

We agree on the need for scepticism, but I see indubitable talent where you see a high bar, with you as Olympic umpire. Consider two intimate outsiders on Scottish literature. Yeats contrasts two classes of poet, those like Coleridge and Wordsworth who “write for a clique, and leave after them a school”, and “the bardic class – the Homers and Hugos, the Burnses and Scotts – who sing of the universal emotions, our loves and angers, our delight in stories and heroes, our delight in things beautiful and gallant. They do not write for a clique, or leave after them a school, for they sing for all men.” I take Yeats’s judgment seriously. More recently, Colm Tóibín, introducing The Penguin Book of Irish Fiction, contrasts the vibrancy of new Scottish writing with a more cautious Irish literary landscape: “Most of the work being produced in Ireland now is formally conservative…This new conservatism among fiction writers both north and south of the border is most clear when you compare the calmness of contemporary Irish writing with the wildness of contemporary Scottish writing. It is as though the legacy of Sterne and Swift, Joyce, Beckett and Flann O’Brien had taken the Larne-Stranraer ferry; in the writing of James Kelman, Alasdair Gray, Irvine Welsh, Janice Galloway and Alan Warner there is political anger, stylistic experiment and formal trickery. Books are written, as in Ireland in the old days, to replace a country”. I take Tóibín seriously.

For these formidable Irish writers, Scotland presents a shining example. You beg to differ. You see a self-congratulatory conspiracy. I see a national literature judged the world over as of unparalleled excellence and influence. Dissent and doubt are necessary, so is nurturing. We’ll never reach a neutral notion of good writing, but in denying Scotland has contributed disproportionately to world literature, you’re having a laugh. Wakey-Wakey! Scottish writing’s been judged excellent at the bar of international opinion, despite wing-clipping at home by carping culture vultures, the old nobody-here-but-us-chickens cultural cringe. This small country’s produced literary giants with unquestionable international reputations: Burns and Scott, Hogg and Stevenson, Gunn and Gibbon, Kelman and Spark. Its oil’s been squandered, not its ink. Patrick Kavanagh contrasted the parochial view – good work arises from one’s own backyard – with the provincial view – good writing happens elsewhere. Which side of the fence are you on? Set the bar high – then toss the caber.

Willy

Dear Willy

I’m going to run through your quotations and objections relatively briefly, and conclude with my own methodology for judgement.

In terms of the dissenting nature of criticism, it seems to me that dissent must be dissent from; hence my invocation of its implied consensus. It is intrinsically bound with its own opposition, to the extent of (quasi)legitimising that from which it departs. The Golden Age brigade is certainly no conspiracy I’ve invented, but an observation: a present day “Golden Age of Scottish literature” has been advocated by Allan Wilson MSP, Gavin Wallace of the Arts Council and the British Council on its website. Similar claims – “Scottish poetry is in its healthiest state for hundreds of years” (W N Herbert); “In the last 25 years Scottish writing has undergone a Renaissance” (Scottish Publishers Association), “The last 15 years in particular have witnessed an unprecedented flowering” (yourself, in the 100 Best Scottish Books) – such assertions are ten a penny. I wouldn’t deny anyone the right to make such claims: all I ask is that they make the criteria for their

judgement explicit.

I’m sorry that my argument was not clearer before you lost me. Wee country – can it punch above its weight against a big country? Is our local up to being global? Are we in danger of doing an “Eddie ‘the Eagle’ Edwards” and celebrating at home what is ignored abroad?

That a bar is high does not preclude a wide range of taste. Again, it’s a question of uncovering how we judge – saying “Is Iain M Banks better than China Mieville?” or “Is Ian Rankin better than Henning Mankell?” is no different from saying “Is Muriel Spark better than Margaret Drabble?” By the way, a broad bar, I think, is a kind of plank. Or perhaps stumbling block.

Your quotes then come thick and fast, and I don’t feel that trading favourite quotes is a particularly effective way of exploring. The Yeats quote, while interesting, seems typically scant on evidence. Was there a school of Wordsworth? Influence certainly, imitation occasionally, but a school? And is Scott so ‘universal’? It’s easier to see a school of Scott than of Coleridge. Colm’s quote is, again, interesting; and I’d agree with him about a certain conservatism in some contemporary Irish writing. But why not look West, to the writings of Millet, Rosenberg, Danielewski, Homes, Kalfus… or around the globe to Yang Lian, Etienne van Heerden, Amelie Nothomb or Tor Bringsværd; writers to my mind far more politically engaged, formally innovative and subtly radical than, say, “Porno”, “The Worms Can Carry Me to Heaven” or “You Have to Be Careful in the Land of the Free”.

It’s here that things start to become conflicted. Do I think Scotland has produced great literature? Emphatically yes. Has it produced a disproportionate amount? Well, given that, as a Scot, I know it better than I know the history of Persian, Belgian or Magyar writing, I might notice it more often, but I can’t really say: and neither can you. The fact that most of Scottish Literature is accessible to an Anglophone audience, and given the global reach of English, a certain disproportion is built into the assertion. How would one even go about validating the claim you have made, the one that if I dissent from I’m “having a laugh”? Playing the “tartaner than thou” card is easy.

Is the writing being produced now of a stature to stand proud on an international stage? Again, we need to decide what we’re talking about. If there were a Da Vinci Code from an author in Hoy or Hawick would that be a triumph for Scottish literature? There are living writers whose work I admire a very great deal; there are also writers whose works I feel are over-wrought, under-thought, ill-conceived or shoogly in their plotting to say the least.

The French, for example, feel no need to insist that with Villon, Rabelais, Ronsard, Montaigne, Corneille, Racine, Laclos, Baudelaire, Flaubert, Verlaine, Rimbaud, Stendhal, Mallarmé, Proust, Aragon, Céline, Jaccottet, Perec, Leys and Darrieussecq they deserve to be recognised as a great literary nation. It’s not the cringe I fear, but the tantrum, the look-at-us! look-at-us! You are doing an admirable job as a cheerleader, but Wakey-Wakey Willy! There’s a world out there that exists for reasons other than providing blurbs for Scottish writing. Shaking other people’s pom-poms is different from proof.

So: my agenda. Wikipedia, that free-for-all internet encyclopaedia, has a feature called a “Disambiguation Page”. Great literature is the opposite of that. Before you reach for an old copy of F R Leavis, and berate me again about my supposed Olympian pose, let me make this very clear. Language, the world, and individuals are complex, complex entities. I admire the literature that unveils as it unravels that to the reader. Complex doesn’t mean difficult: it can be deceptively simple; as in Russell Hoban’s The Mouse and his Child, or MacDiarmid’s “Empty Vessel”. If writing reduces the reader – by stereotype, by monoglossia, by complicit limitation – it performs something aggressive against the whole idea of reading.

I have some final questions. You’ve said that your bar is broad: tell me who you rejected from the two hundred books mentioned in your 100 Best Scottish Books, and then, for example, why Alan Massie isn’t there in the top 100 but J K Rowling is? At least 200 choices were made: what were the reasons behind those decisions?

PS: is our literary production edgy at the moment? If so, are we bound up with tyranny? Answers on a postcard to Amnesty.

PPS: “We agree on the need for scepticism”. How then can something be indubitable?

Dear Stuart

I can’t speak for Allan Wilson or Gavin Wallace, but I imagine they were speaking in an official capacity, promoting Scottish literature. I was publicising a particular project, the 100 Best Scottish Books, to which you contributed (thanks). Context is everything. There’s a time and place for puff and blurb. Like here: “Is the writing being produced now of a stature to stand proud on an international stage?” Yes: Alasdair Gray, AL Kennedy, Don Paterson, Alan Warner.

Conversely, you mention Scottish writers chiefly as a putdown. All your comparisons show them in a bad light. You talk of “the global reach of English”, ignoring Scots and Gaelic. You act like political writing was the province of others. You urge me to “look West” – young man! – where the real talent is. I see it in the West of Scotland. You insist other “writers” are “far more politically engaged, formally innovative and subtly radical than” selected Scottish counterparts, but you list only three novels without naming the authors. How can you compare nine diverse “writers” to three recent books? It’s a false comparison, a smokescreen. We’re discussing good writing in a Scottish context. You urge me to “look West … or around the globe”. You say: “Language, the world, and individuals are complex, complex entities.” The only complex at work here is the inferiority complex or cultural cringe.

You say “as a Scot” you know Scottish literature “better than … the history of Persian, Belgian or Magyar writing.” Many Scots grow up unfamiliar with the history of their own literature. Some go to University to study “English Literature” – there’s only one Department of Scottish Literature in Scotland, at my University. You ask important questions aimed at “uncovering how we judge”, profound enquiries like “Is Ian Rankin better than Henning Mankell?” Come off it. Can’t we judge Scottish writing on its own terms, acknowledging it’s earned an international audience? There’s lots in translation. Your whole argument boils down to saying Scottish writing isn’t a patch on what you read on your holidays. Your “methodology for judgement” is to ask if Muriel Spark is better than Margaret Drabble. The answer’s yes, but that’s beside the point. Drabble wrote a silly review of Spark’s The Takeover in the New York Times 30 years ago in which she described Not To Disturb and The Driver’s Seat as “thin” novels with “thin” subjects. This suggests she’s not risen to the challenge of Spark.

I say again, for you, good writing happens elsewhere. Witness your long list of better thans and short list of Scottish also-rans. I believe good writing happens here. I knows it – I grows it. You don’t invoke these pairings to compare or contrast, only to glibly demean the contestants, like some cheesy game show compère. I might want to compare Buchi Emecheta’s The New Tribe with Jackie Kay’s Adoption Papers, or Cyprian Ekwensi’s People of the City with Kelman’s A Disaffection, not to see who’s the bestest but to discover how writers engage with adoption and urban angst. Reading is an armchair activity, not arm-wrestling. To conclude: none of your comparisons are serious. Critics beyond Scotland compare Kelman with Kafka. To his credit, Kelman shrugs off such comparisons.

You say certain Scottish writers “are over-wrought, under-thought, ill-conceived or shoogly in their plotting to say the least”. Who do you have in mind? Scottish writers excel across genres. This disconcerts you. When Yeats looks enviously across the water he wants for Ireland what Scotland has. Nobody’s neutral. Everyone has a stake and chips on their shoulder – you, me, everybody.

When Chris Small contacted me initially about this dialogue the suggested topic was “whether Scottish writing is currently experiencing a ‘golden age’, as is often claimed; the quality of opportunities available to emergent writers; and the manner in which the work of Scottish writers is promoted and marketed”. Later, Chris told me “Stuart is keen to discuss how in Scotland we come to a consensus over what makes a ‘good’ writer”. However, your real interest lies in listing writers who have nothing to say about this, or nothing you’re prepared to offer. You name-check thirty non-Scottish writers but can’t bring yourself to name the authors of the Scottish novels you so readily and rudely dismiss. Sir, you are impertinent!

You ask who I “rejected from the two hundred books mentioned in … 100 Best Scottish Books”. That I managed to showcase 200 writers in a list of 100 Best Books speaks volumes for my ingenuity and inclusiveness. Remember this was a list of books, and among those “rejected” in favour of others, Lanark yielded to Poor Things, The Busconductor Hines gave way to A Disaffection, Kidnapped succumbed to Jekyll and Hyde. Many of my first choices yielded to others’. Massie surrendered to the masses. I compiled, in consultation with experts in the field, a list of 200 writers, each the author of a distinctive Scottish book, broadly defined, covering every corner of the country, every form and genre, balancing prestige and popularity. Some books with broad appeal supplanted others. I’m still reeling from the sheer brio of it. The end result is a stunning cornucopia. In my introduction, and in articles in Scottish newspapers, I expounded the rationale. There’s no need or room to repeat it here. I’d like to see your counter-list.

Quote me happy. I never claimed to be “tartaner than thou”. You refer me to the Wikipedia’s ‘“Disambiguation Page”’ to tell me “Great literature is the opposite of that.” Is this your “aesthetic agenda”? You said dissent was “intrinsically bound with its own opposition”, so maybe you mean great literature is really Wikipedia – a novel idea. As for the French not needing to insist they’re a great literary nation, can I quote you on that? I’d appreciate some evidence. They’re likely proud of their literary culture, as I am of mine. You “admire the literature that unveils as it unravels”. I admire writing that veils and ravels. I loathe criticism that reduces writing to a beauty contest.

As for tyranny, check out the Amnesty website. Read about rendition flights going through Glasgow International, Edinburgh, Leuchars and Prestwick, the latter also the conduit for bombs for Israel. Scotland, a stateless nation within a state (Britain) within a state (America), is bound up with tyranny. Still, its writers have the attention and respect of the world. There’s genius, greatness, goodness in the nest. That’s a feather in our cap.

I’m sure of Scotland’s writing talent but sceptical about its critical establishment, especially its literary reviewers You can have the last word for now. But let the conversation continue. Let a hundred flowers bloom, a hundred thistles get grasped. Let dissent take the place of descent. Rather than judgements handed down from on high, critic to writer, let our writers teach us things about language and life that we, with all our bookishness, never knew. We need to look under our noses, not down them.

Does my tartan tantrum look big in this?

Willy

Willy

Well, now I'm worried. Reading your final response, I'm agog that you so persistently misread what I'm saying. All the phrases that imply I see myself as some kind of arch-arbiter - the Olympian, looking down his nose, making comparisons to "glibly demean" - have been conjured up in your own imagination. I am posing questions, and am genuinely interested in the answers that might arise. Somehow you are threatened by this, it appears, and resort to name-calling.

You accuse me of believing that literature happens elsewhere. I'm happy to refute this: in the past few years I have written positive reviews of writers such as Frank Kuppner, John Aberdein, Janice Galloway, David Kinloch, W N Herbert, John Burnside, Kirsty Gunn and Catriona McPherson.

It's not that I think it only happens elsewhere, but that it also happens elsewhere. I would have hoped that, by the beginning of the 21^st century, it might be acceptable to be a Cosmopolitan Scot; but evidently no. Don't panic, Willy: if you want to sit with your fingers in your ears, I'm happy to leave you there. But you're missing out. You might -

Heaven forefend! - find a book you like better than a Scottish one.

Now, there are Scottish writers whose work I find less impressive. Is that somehow unpatriotic? It is forbidden in the New Golden Age to think that Irvine Welsh has gone off the boil; that Val McDermid's prose is exceptionally awkward; that Des Dillon's poetry is numbingly simplistic; that Carol Anne Duffy has become programmatic? I'm happy for independent minded readers to disagree with me, and therein lies the difference. I want a debate and you want a gang. I'm curious as to others' process of judging, you wish to stifle dissent if it's not dissent in the right direction.

As for the French, I'd recommend Dernier inventaire avant liquidation by Frederic Beigbeder - a rather less insular take on the making of lists.

Why this bizarre attitude? I'm more than happy to say that there are great Scottish writers; but I'm never going to be so arrogant as to claim that Scotland is unprecedented, superior, or singularly blessed by the Muses. I've laid out my agenda - to state it in another form, I like TARDIS books that are bigger on the inside, and leave the reader feeling fuller yet pared down. You, on the other hand, throw out myriad different agendas. It's about others saying we're great. It's about translations. It's about us saying we're great. It's popularity. It's prestige. And when asked a simple question - why was Massie in the lower 100 and Rowling in the upper - you add the caveat that it was done "in consultation with others". Come on - defend your decision, rather than say some other kids made you do it. I'm curious. I'm listening.

And, dear me, but you're awfully pleased with your list. Self-praise, as my Mum says, is no praise. It was, admittedly, an interesting selection, and I was happy to write about two of my favourite authors, Hume and Friel. But the minute a debate started, you got defensive. The plain silly decision to include Woolf, Conrad and Orwell consumed far more column inches than the virtues of the Scottish authors.

So why this desire for me to be the ogre, and literary reviewers to be the one thing you're genuinely sceptical about? I think you rather give the game away with the "I knows it - I grows it" comment. Tempting and inaccurate though it might be to say "and I mows it", your agenda is at least plain here. A hundred flowers bloom, under the tender eye of

Groundskeeper Willy. Of course we're living in Eden: after all, you planted it.

I'd make no such claims for literary journalism. It is a modest affair, soliciting the opinions of others, allowing them to speak for themselves. I sent out one book that had a story by a friend of mine: the reviewer singled that story out for dispraise. I ran the review. The reviewer and I then spoke, and got to know better why and how that call was made. And that was good. That was a debate.

William McIlvanney recently said that he "thought there is a need in Scotland now we've got the parliament to over-praise all things Scottish. That's a very unScottish thing to do". I agree wholeheartedly with him. It's not a Golden Age, it's Wonderland, where everyone wins and all shall have prizes.

The nest of genius is well hidden, given the cacophony of territorial chirruping. A plethora of seagulls croak louder than a nightingale.

Stuart

Alan Warner on writing

Alan Warner: How I write

TimeOut London

June 5th, 2006

Is there anything unique about the way I write? Well, I feel so incredibly ill-disciplined, and I have a kind of paranoia that all other writers are very disciplined. I don’t write at any set times; I just write when it takes me. When things are going well I’ll go for 12 hours, but when things are going badly I’ll just look out the window. I think the basic rule is that if nothing’s coming then nothing’s coming. It’s really hard to force stuff for me – it’s that Hemingway thing. Now, he used to write standing up, but I think that was because of his haemorrhoids, so I can understand that. Not that I’m a sufferer; it’s one of the few afflictions I’ve been spared. So far.

When things are going badly, I sometimes flit between the book and email. Which is deadly, but I’ve more or less stopped that. I noticed for a while that I was going into my study and dedicating far too much care to my angry letters to the electricity company: ‘The Collected Letters to Scottish Power’. I should return to that opus one day.

I know a lot of writers listen to music when they write and I do too, but it has to be ambient or something like that. If you have something you really like on, the music can add a soundtrack to what you’ve just written and you can think it’s much more interesting or dramatic or moving that it is.

Could I conceivably have a day job? Not any more. I’m too fat and spoiled, I’m afraid. The first novel I wrote was completely done between night shifts working on the railways in Scotland. I stopped going out and just worked on the book. But the shifts were quite good discipline because you knew you only had those hours. Once they stopped and the luxury of time arrived, I’m sure my work ethic crumbled quite a bit. Fiction feeds off the life you’ve led or are leading. I think that’s why so many novels in England used to be, or still are, dull.

A lot of writers would just come down from Oxbridge and land a good office job – not digging roads or anything – so for many years there was a kind of predictable sheen on every writer’s life experience. American literature comes out so rich because there are so many different lived experiences out there, so many cultures. Even in the 1950s you had your Cheevers and Updikes – urbane New York – alongside the Beats, living a completely different kind of life. And writing about it in a way that, at the time in Britain, was almost inconceivable.

The romance of being a writer diminshes. It was more romantic when I started out ten years ago. And that romance itself is rather limited; it’s a space in your own mind. It hits suddenly one day in the pub – say, by yourself on a Tuesday with a pint of Guinness. You go, ‘Ah, for my next novel, what I might do is…’, and you look at yourself and go, ‘Wow, Warner. You’re in the pub going, “For my next novel…” ’ And that’s quite romantic. Or you’re in a café and some friend introduces you as ‘Alan, the writer’. Boom. But I don’t think of myself as a writer. I think of myself as a reader. Or a skiver.

Alan Warner’s new novel ‘The Worms Can Carry Me To Heaven’ is published by Cape

The Road, by Cormac Macarthy

After the sparse, stripped-down prose of No Country For Old Men, Macarthy is back with a chilling post-apocolyptic vision of the future. The following review is from Alan Warner, author of the Scottish existential angst-ridden Morvern Callar. The only thing missing is a mention of William Gay among his Tough Guys.



The road to hell

The Guardian Saturday,
November 4th, 2006

Shorn of history and context, Cormac McCarthy's other nine novels could be cast as rungs, with The Road as a pinnacle. This is a very great novel, but one that needs a context in both the past and in so-called post-9/11 America.

We can divide the contemporary American novel into two traditions, or two social classes. The Tough Guy tradition comes up from Fenimore Cooper, with a touch of Poe, through Melville, Faulkner and Hemingway. The Savant tradition comes from Hawthorne, especially through Henry James, Edith Wharton and Scott Fitzgerald. You could argue that the latter is liberal, east coast/New York, while the Tough Guys are gothic, reactionary, nihilistic, openly religious, southern or fundamentally rural.

The Savants' blood line (curiously unrepresentative of Americans generally) has gained undoubted ascendancy in the literary firmament of the US. Upper middle class, urban and cosmopolitan, they or their own species review themselves. The current Tough Guys are a murder of great, hopelessly masculine, undomesticated writers, whose critical reputations have been and still are today cruelly divergent, adrift and largely unrewarded compared to the contemporary Savant school. In literature as in American life, success must be total and contrasted "failure" fatally dispiriting.

But in both content and technical riches, the Tough Guys are the true legislators of tortured American souls. They could include novelists Thomas McGuane, William Gaddis, Barry Hannah, Leon Rooke, Harry Crews, Jim Harrison, Mark Richard, James Welch and Denis Johnson. Cormac McCarthy is granddaddy to them all. New York critics may prefer their perfidy to be ignored, comforting themselves with the superlatives for All the Pretty Horses, but we should remember that the history of Cormac McCarthy and his achievement is not an American dream but near on 30 years of neglect for a writer who, since The Orchard Keeper in 1965, produced only masterworks in elegant succession. Now he has given us his great American nightmare.

The Road is a novel of transforming power and formal risk. Abandoning gruff but profound male camaraderie, McCarthy instead sounds the limits of imaginable love and despair between a diligent father and his timid young son, "each other's world entire". The initial experience of the novel is sobering and oppressive, its final effect is emotionally shattering.

America - and presumably the world - has suffered an apocalypse the nature of which is unclear and, faced with such loss, irrelevant. The centre of the world is sickened. Earthquakes shunt, fire storms smear a "cauterised terrain", the ash-filled air requires slipshod veils to cover the mouth. Nature revolts. The ruined world is long plundered, with canned food and good shoes the ultimate aspiration. Almost all have plunged into complete Conradian savagery: murdering convoys of road agents, marauders and "bloodcults" plunder these wastes. Most have resorted to cannibalism. One passing brigade is fearfully glimpsed: "Bearded, their breath smoking through their masks. The phalanx following carried spears or lances ... and lastly a supplementary consort of catamites illclothed against the cold and fitted in dogcollars and yoked each to each." Despite this soul desert, the end of God and ethics, the father still defines and endangers himself by trying to instil moral values in his son, by refusing to abandon all belief.

All of this is utterly convincing and physically chilling. The father is coughing blood, which forces him and his son, "in their rags like mendicant friars sent forth to find their keep", on to the treacherous road southward, towards a sea and - possibly - survivable, milder winters. They push their salvage in a shopping cart, wryly fitted with a motorcycle mirror to keep sentinel over that road behind. The father has a pistol, with two bullets only. He faces the nadir of human and parental existence; his wife, the boy's mother, has already committed suicide. If caught, the multifarious reavers will obviously rape his son, then slaughter and eat them both. He plans to shoot his son - though he questions his ability to do so - if they are caught. Occasionally, between nightmares, the father seeks refuge in dangerously needy and exquisite recollections of our lost world.

They move south through nuclear grey winter, "like the onset of some cold glaucoma dimming away the world", sleeping badly beneath filthy tarpaulin, setting hidden campfires, exploring ruined houses, scavenging shrivelled apples. We feel and pity their starving dereliction as, despite the profound challenge to the imaginative contemporary novelist, McCarthy completely achieves this physical and metaphysical hell for us. "The world shrinking down to a raw core of parsible entities. The names of things slowly following those things into oblivion. Colours. The names of birds. Things to eat. Finally the names of things one believed to be true."

Such a scenario allows McCarthy finally to foreground only the very basics of physical human survival and the intimate evocation of a destroyed landscape drawn with such precision and beauty. He makes us ache with nostalgia for restored normality. The Road also encapsulates the usual cold violence, the biblical tincture of male masochism, of wounds and rites of passage. His central character can adopt a universal belligerence and misanthropy. In this damnation, rightly so, everyone, finally, is the enemy. He tells his son: "My job is to take care of you. I was appointed by God to do that ... We are the good guys." The other uncomfortable, tellingly national moment comes when the father salvages perhaps the last can of Coke in the world. This is truly an American apocalypse.

The vulnerable cultural references for this daring scenario obviously come from science fiction. But what propels The Road far beyond its progenitors are the diverted poetic heights of McCarthy's late-English prose; the simple declamation and plainsong of his rendered dialect, as perfect as early Hemingway; and the adamantine surety and utter aptness of every chiselled description. As has been said before, McCarthy is worthy of his biblical themes, and with some deeply nuanced paragraphs retriggering verbs and nouns that are surprising and delightful to the ear, Shakespeare is evoked. The way McCarthy sails close to the prose of late Beckett is also remarkable; the novel proceeds in Beckett-like, varied paragraphs. They are unlikely relatives, these two artists in old age, cornered by bleak experience and the rich limits of an English pulverised down through despair to a pleasingly wry perfection. "He rose and stood tottering in that cold autistic dark with his arms out-held for balance while the vestibular calculations in his skull cranked out their reckonings. An old chronicle."

Set piece after set piece, you will read on, absolutely convinced, thrilled, mesmerised with disgust and the fascinating novelty of it all: breathtakingly lucky escapes; a complete train, abandoned and alone on an embankment; a sudden liberating, joyous discovery or a cellar of incarcerated amputees being slowly eaten. And everywhere the mummified dead, "shrivelled and drawn like latterday bogfolk, their faces of boiled sheeting, the yellowed palings of their teeth".

All the modern novel can do is done here. After the great historical fictions of the American west, Blood Meridian and The Border Trilogy, The Road is no artistic pinnacle for McCarthy but instead a masterly reclamation of those midnight-black, gothic worlds of Outer Dark (1968) and the similarly terrifying but beautiful Child of God (1973). How will this vital novel be positioned in today's America by Savants, Tough Guys or worse? Could its nightmare vistas reinforce those in the US who are determined to manipulate its people into believing that terror came into being only in 2001? This text, in its fragility, exists uneasily within such ill times. It's perverse that the scorched earth which The Road depicts often brings to mind those real apocalypses of southern Iraq beneath black oil smoke, or New Orleans - vistas not unconnected with the contemporary American regime.

One night, when the father thinks that he and his son will starve to death, he weeps, not about the obvious but about beauty and goodness, "things he'd no longer any way to think about". Camus wrote that the world is ugly and cruel, but it is only by adding to that ugliness and cruelty that we sin most gravely. The Road affirms belief in the tender pricelessness of the here and now. In creating an exquisite nightmare, it does not add to the cruelty and ugliness of our times; it warns us now how much we have to lose. It makes the novels of the contemporary Savants seem infantile and horribly over-rated. Beauty and goodness are here aplenty and we should think about them. While we can.

· Alan Warner's latest novel is The Worms Can Carry Me to Heaven (Cape)

Action woman

The Scotsman - February 9th 2002

From Elizabeth Balneaves’s kitchen window you can see a bird-table all a-flurry with shrill visitors. It’s a cheering sight but somewhat more domesticated than the view she had of the North Rhodesian bush, 40-odd years ago: "The smell of elephant lay heavy in the blazing heat of the afternoon ... a couple of black storks careened down through the treetops to land uncertainly like helicopters on the soft sand … A cloud of Zambesi lovebirds flashed emerald green almost across our faces and a lone baboon roared like a lion from the depths of the thicket."

It’s a far cry from the weekday afternoon lassitude of Cullen, the quiet Banffshire resort where Balneaves now lives; not quite so distant in memory, however, as this disconcertingly vigorous 90-year-old is busy writing her memoirs on the computer her sons gave her for her birthday last September. Balneaves’s main document sorting area is the kitchen table. It is littered with diaries, scrapbooks and photographs - depicting her stooped over a camp fire in the Hindu Kush, or wading in an African river hanging on to what she calls "the nonoperative end" of a sizeable python.

She is surveying her eventful life just as a biography has appeared of another Scots traveller, author and film-maker Isobel Wylie Hutchison. Balneaves herself was friendly with a third adventurer and chronicler, the Shetland-based Jenny Gilbertson, who, like Hutchison, filmed the indigenous peoples of the Arctic circle. All three ventured, often alone, into what was very much men’s territory.

Artist, author, film-maker, Balneaves has led what most of us, save perhaps the terminally adventurous, might describe as a full life. The daughter of an Aberdeen headmaster, she graduated from the city’s Gray’s School of Art in 1934, already engaged to psychologist Dr James Johnston: "We met at Wormwood Scrubs. He was on the staff and my uncle was a visiting doctor there."

At the end of the 1940s, they were living in Edinburgh and she was combining painting with looking after their four children until, as she puts it with a disarming insouciance, she "took off" for Pakistan, and not with her husband. "It’s … um … I’m writing my memoirs just now and it’s rather difficult, but I met this chap and went off with him and by the time I’d decided it wasn’t on, it was too late."

If the emotional attraction proved misguided, the relationship with Pakistan would be a lasting one, and formative - in order to live, she nursed, became temporary head of arts and crafts at the University of the Punjab in Lahore, wrote for Punjab Gazette and helped found and edit the Pakistan Review.

Returning to London, she launched into freelance journalism and promptly landed a commission for a book on Pakistan which sent her back there, taking her own photographs after the arranged snapper fell through. The result, The Waterless Moon, sported a foreword by Sir William Barton, former political agent in Swat and Chitral, describing it as "an extraordinary book, written by an extraordinary young woman of courage and grit … and with all this that rare gift of close observation and the faculty of describing what she sees in vivid language."

Plaudits apart, the book hardly made her fortune and, by this time in her late forties, she started taking photographs for companies involved in hydro-electric power and other schemes in Pakistan. One such job involved clambering up the outside ladder of a water tower. "I managed to get to the top and the German engineer I was with said , ‘Ach, you vomen of today!’ If he’d only known that the woman of today was shaking like a jelly. But I got the photograph."

Another book, Peacocks and Pipeless, resulted. Around that time, largely at the behest of their children, she re-married the long-suffering Johnston who was posted to Carstairs State Hospital. "I had a marvellous time. I taught eight murderers to paint," she says with some glee.

When one of her sons, Stewart, got a job in tobacco farming in what was then Northern Rhodesia, she seized the opportunity and ended up documenting the rescue of animals as, during the late 1950s, the Kariba dam project was flooding a vast area, displacing both people and animals. Her Elephant Valley was about game and tsetse supervisor Joe MacGregor Brooks, who was carrying out a private animal rescue operation of his own.

She returned with her first film camera and also a commission from Edinburgh Zoo, for whom she’d been working as a PR, to bring back some animals. She made a short film for schools television on the capture of an aardvaark: "I edited it in the attic, wrote the commentary and read it. They wanted ten minutes and I think it was just a minute out," she recalls.

Further films followed, articles in The Scotsman and National Geographic, among other journals; there was a return to Pakistan and the Hindu Kush, and another book, Mountains of the Murgha Zerin.

Many of her forays were made virtually alone, or in very much men-only environments. Did she ever feel at risk? "No. I feel more at risk here when someone bashes on my door at half-past 12 at night. The only time I did feel at risk was in Calcutta, where I was burgled one night."

She and her husband moved to Shetland, which prompted another book, The Windswept Isles, and where, through their respective daughters, she got to know the Glasgow-born documentary film-maker Jenny Gilbertson.

Gilbertson had become hooked after seeing amateur holiday film of Loch Lomond and, self-taught, had gone on to make a string of film documentaries about Shetland life at a time when, thanks to the likes of Michael Powell and Robert Flaherty, films about remote communities were becoming popular. Gilbertson emerged from the Scottish hotbed of documentary film making, encouraged by the crusty pioneer John Grierson, who described her first effort, A Crofter’s Life in Shetland, in 1931 as "an extraordinary job of work.

Among Gilbertson’s other films were The Rugged Island, made in 1934 about the life of a Shetland crofter - whom she ultimately married - and a film about Shetland ponies which took her four years to make.

Gilbertson, recalls Janet McBain, curator of the Scottish Film Archive in Glasgow, may have been small in stature, "but she was ten feet tall in action and energy". Gilbertson died in 1990 and the archive now holds much of her material, while seats in both the Glasgow Film Theatre and Edinburgh Filmhouse are dedicate in her name by Shetland Islands Council.

"We had a lot of fun together," Balneaves recalls of Gilbertson. The pair travelled together to Papa Stour, filming the island’s famous sword dance, though the film itself seems to have vanished without trace.

Still feeling that outward urge in her 70s, Gilbertson headed for the Canadian Arctic to film the changing life of the Inuit, among other things documenting the 300-mile journey made by one dog team. Balneaves was supposed to join her on one such Canadian expedition, but caught pneumonia beforehand so Gilbertson, as she did so often, went alone.

Balneaves, for her part, made her last working trip in 1982, after her one-time book subject, Brooks MacGregor, asked for help in publicising elephant poaching in Zambia. "I did 15 miles through the bush, twice, with a game guard - got some super photos of buffalo." She was 71.

Jenny Gilbertson would almost certainly have known, or at least known of, the third and perhaps most remarkable in our triumvirate of doughty Scots women travellers, authors and (all self-taught) film-makers, Isobel Wylie Hutchison.

Brought up at Cardownie, a Scotsbaronial mansion outside Kirkliston, West Lothian, Hutchison grew from a reserved and private girl into a remarkable yet still little-known traveller, botanist, poet, author and film-maker, who between 1927 and 1936 made four major journeys to Greenland, the northern coasts of Alaska and Arctic Canada, at a time when it was rare for women to go any further north than the goldfields of Alaska and Yukon. She brought back botanical specimens, film footage and the makings of several books, including On Greenland’s Closed Shore, North to the Rime-Ringed Sun and Arctic Nights’ Entertainments. Her film footage, held by the Scottish Screen Archive, shows Greenlanders stepping out enthusiastically in Scottish dances taught to them by visiting whalers a century before.

Hutchison, who died in 1982, was an enigmatic combination of the wilfully determined and the near-mystical, seeing the hand of God in the sublime and awesome Arctic environment, and who did much of her travelling alone, or in the rough and ready, all-male company of sailors, trappers and hunters. As Gwyneth Hoyle of Trent University, Ontario, puts it in her newly published biography of Hutchison, Flowers in the Snow (University of Nebraska Press), "Leading a sheltered life in a Victorian home until she was nearly 30, Isobel expanded and blossomed in personality with each new adventure … She was like a flower whose bud remains tightly closed until the right circumstances cause it to open."

She was, as another commentator puts it, "gloriously out of step with the conventions of her time".

Was there something in the air, or the water, that should produce the likes of Hutchison and two other redoubtable Scots women traveller-film-makers within a couple of decades? David Munro, current director of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, whose journal Hutchison edited for ten years, points out that within the Scottish tradition of producing notable explorers, several of them were women, such as Hutchison, or Ella Christie from Dollar, who travelled on foot from Istanbul into Central Asia and made a similar journey from Moscow.

"We seem to have a remarkably high proportion of women with boundless energy and insatiable curiosity, and that’s a very Scottish trait," says Munro. "In Hutchison’s writings she is always pulled on by what’s beyond the horizon. And she is undaunted by the discomforts, another Scottish trait. And you have these traits balanced against the fact that it was very unfashionable for women to be doing this sort of thing."

The Scottish education system, he reckons, was crucial, "but there was also the social system, with all sots of push-pull factors operating, from the Highland clearances to the claustrophobia of Edinburgh society."

Hutchison assiduously noted domestic details among the Icelanders, Greenlanders and Inuits she visited, what they cooked and how - not the kind of thing you’d find, as Hoyle remarks in her biography, "in the heroic narratives of male Greenland explorers".

Munro agrees that women travellers observe differently from their male counterparts: "With Hutchison you get to meet the people and you encounter the landscape, she notices everything, whereas with many another early travel writer it’s all about them … I can think of writers who don’t even tell you the names of the guys who are carrying the baggage for them."

According to Hoyle, Hutchison would never have called herself a feminist - "merely an independent person who may have observed the bonds of conventional society at home but was prepared to be as unconventional as necessary in her travels". Unconventional all three women’s lives may have been, but they were also long. Elizabeth Balneaves is still rattling away at her computer, a spry 90; Gilbertson was re-editing some of her films within two years of her death at the age of 88; Hutchison was 92 when she died, outliving all her family and most of her friends. Whatever the rigours of going it alone as a woman traveller, it doesn’t seem to require a government health warning.

Elizabeth 'Betty' Balneaves

My grandmother lived a full life until the day she died, November 7th. Just a few short weeks ago she celebrated her 95th birthday with a party at her home - matching the stragglers, my brother Sorley and cousin Tim, with whisky-drinking endurance into the wee hours of the morning. I have decided to return from New Zealand for her funeral in Scotland. Travelling round the world to celebrate her memory seems fitting. She was the most intrepid explorer I have ever known. My father, J Laughton Johnston, wrote the following obituary for The Scotsman (Tuesday 14th November 2006):

Elizabeth Balneaves (1911-2006)

Elizabeth, or Betty as she was known to friends and family, author, painter and filmmaker, was born in Aberdeen, the only child of Annie and Alexander Balneaves. She graduated from Aberdeen Art College and married the psychiatrist Dr James McL Johnston of Shetland extraction in 1934. Although they were separated for several years, Jim supported her in her work throughout their married life.

Betty wrote six books, made a number of documentary films, drew many portraits in pastel and charcoal and painted many landscapes, latterly mainly of Shetland and Cullen. In Shetland, which she first visited with Jim in 1934, she is perhaps best known for The Windswept Isles (1977), which she wrote during the 20 or so years she and Jim lived in retirement in the old manse at Bigton in the 1960s and '70s. This was her tribute to the people and the islands whom she always felt had adopted her.

During those years she also made a documentary film of Shetland for the BBC: People of Many Lands - Shetland. Although painting was her first love it was her writing that brought her to a wider public attention, one of the first signs of her literary talent being a poem published in 1945 in Poetry Scotland (2^nd collection), that wonderful series of Scottish poetry books published by William MacLellan & Co.

In the early 1950s Betty travelled alone to Pakistan, particularly to Karachi and the Frontier with Afghanistan , where she stayed for several years, resulting in The Waterless Moon (1955) and Peacocks and Pipelines (1958), both of which received some critical acclaim. Later, she returned to the area with her son, Stewart, resulting in a third book on the area between the Hindu Khush and the Karakoram, The Mountains of the Murgha Zerin (1972) and some unique film footage of this remote area and its culture.

At a later date they returned to the Sunderbunds (in then East Pakistan), this time concentrating on documentary filmmaking. In 1959, between her second and third books, Betty visited the area being flooded (in then Southern Rhodesia) by the new Kariba Dam where Stewart was working. Here she made a documentary film of the effects of the flooding on wildlife - Logging in the Sundarabans, East Pakistan - and wrote the story of a colourful Scottish Game and Tsetse Supervisor called Joe McGregor Brooks entitled Elephant Valley (1962).

Just prior to this trip Betty worked as a publicity officer for the Edinburgh Zoo and as with everything she did, she made use of this experience in her only work of fiction, Murder in the Zoo (1974).

Betty had a great zest for life, travel, cooking, uisge-beatha and good company that continued into her old age, becoming computer literate on her 90^th birthday and spending her next 5 years, right to the end, sending and receiving emails from her family and many grandchildren scattered across the globe. During this time she also began putting together the text for her final publication, her memoirs, which, alas, she never finished. Betty was an only child and it never ceased to astonish her that she had so many descendants. Betty died quietly in Elgin on the 7 ^th November, just eight weeks after celebrating her 95^th birthday with most of her immediate family. She is survived by her four children, thirteen grandchildren and eleven great grandchildren.