Grizzled
professional writers lucky enough to labor under an institutional umbrella may
blanch at the title of the new Georges Perec book, The Art of Asking Your Boss for A Raise. One
can almost hear David Brooks exclaim "A raise, now?! In this economic
climate?" while to a younger generation of pajama-clad perpetual
freelancers, the words boss and raise may simply not compute. But Perec has
proven that working against dishearteningly steep odds can inspire a bravura
performance. After all, who would've thought that an entire novel could be
written without the letter "e", as Perec famously did in his playful
1969 work of fiction A Void (La Disparition)? And that it would
actually be good? Such adroit hubris will serve well any Oliver Twist-like
scribe audacious enough to ask his boss for more, sir.
The Art (the
full title, smartly shortened by the publisher on the book's cover, is The Art and Craft of Approaching Your Head
of Department to Submit a Request for a Raise) came about through a happy
accident of history that seems preordained—or at least too good to be true—in
hindsight. As translator David Bellos recounts in his introduction, in the late
1960s Jacques Perriaud of Paris's Computing Service of the Humanities Research
Center endeavored "to challenge a writer to use a computer's basic mode of
operation as a writing device," and Perec, then an obscure author and
archivist, landed the assignment. The piece and accompanying flowchart were
published in a journal devoted to "programmed learning," which hardly
anyone read, and The Art became a
stage and radio play before it was eventually reworked into a chapter of Perec's
masterwork, Life: A User's Manual (La Vie mode d'emploi) in 1978.
The corporate world sketched in Perec's slim volume recalls
the absurd bureaucratic modernism of Jacques Tati's 1967 film Playtime. Bellos
relies on the word circumperambulate (not found in any dictionary, but resurrected
from his boyhood Latin class) in his translation. It's a signature term that
perfectly captures both the essence of this book as well as Tati's placid and
circular cinemascape. As Perec writes:
[W]e advise you that in order to cope with the boredom that
your monotonous pacing could easily prompt you should go have a chinwag with
your colleague ms wye provided of course not only that ms wye is at her desk if
she is not you would not have much of a choice save to circumperambulate the various
departments which taken together constitute the whole or part of the
organisation of which you are an employee unless of course you were
to go back to your own desk to wait for more auspicious times.
Perec's punch-card prose works its way through all the
possible scenarios, including a Sisyphean scene in which the protagonist "quite
pointlessly circumperambulates forty-five times in a row the various
departments." Perec repeatedly deploys the phrase "it's one or tother"
at each branch of the narrative, and continuously blurts "for we must do
our best to keep things simple" as the story becomes hopelessly
convoluted. In the preface, Bellos says the book is "close to being
unreadable," because Perec eschews most punctuation (aside from the
occasional dash), writes in all lowercase, and "simulate[s] the speed and
tireless repetitiveness of a computer."
But while
the book is certainly uneventful, it is far from unreadable—if anything its wit
and comedy encourage compulsive consumption. It's probably better suited to
today's audience than to a reader perusing it when it was written four decades
ago, because it dovetails with the monotone meanderings of the
present moment's information surfeit. Reading The Art is like spending an hour or two on the Internet.
Intrepid employees bent on bettering their salaries, beware:
your boss, too, may have read this volume and learned from Perec. The Art is written in a single
exhalation (it appears to be one seventy-seven-page-long sentence). The
narration runneth over, and the prose's mechanistic cadences often sound like
the desperate bluster of a blowhard intent on buying time. Recent U.S. history
has taught us that the easiest way to refuse a reasonable proposition is to
filibuster: simply spout data ad nasueum until your adversary tires,
circumperambulates away, and waits for more auspicious times.
David O'Neill is an assistant editor at Bookforum.
Please sign in to add a comment on this article.