How often do you read a book that connects in some ways with something you’ve recently read or thought about? Kate Jennings’ award-winning Moral hazard, my latest read, links pretty directly to our discussion about autobiographical fiction in my Monday Musings post on Robert Dessaix two weeks ago. Dessaix, you may remember, criticised Garner’s The spare room (and other works) arguing she was just writing her life, but defended his own autobiographical fiction because he changed things around. Garner, though, argues that in her novels she shapes and orders, plays with time, examines motives etc. What is all this about? Why does it matter? The reverse – calling something non-fiction that is in fact fiction – does matter, I think. You all know the cases, I’m sure. But, if a writer draws from his or her life and calls it fiction, does it matter? Really, does it matter? Well, in this case it does matter, because, while Jennings is another of those writers who draws closely from her life, there are parts of the story that could be very tricky, legally, if they were, in fact, “fact”.
I’ve reviewed two of her works here before – Snake, her first work of autobiographical fiction, and Trouble: The evolution of a radical, which she describes as her “fragmented autobiography”. Jennings, like Helen Garner, is a fearless writer, and I love her for it, so when Text Classics published Moral hazard, her second novel, I was ready and waiting.
Moral hazard is about a woman whose husband is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and who, to obtain the money needed for his care in health-care expensive USA, gets a job as speechwriter for a mid-level investment bank on Wall Street. The wife’s name is Cath (not Kate) and the husband’s name is Bailey (not Bob Cato, the name of Jennings’ husband). Kate Jennings, though, did work as a speechwriter on Wall Street. Fictional Bailey and real Bob are both artists/designers, and both men were diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, but Bailey’s end has a particular drama to suit Jennings’ purpose.
From its very start, in fact, it’s clear that Moral hazard has been carefully written and structured, despite its closeness to Jennings’ life. Take the title, for example, and its pointed word play. Economically, “moral hazard occurs when one person [or organisation] takes more risks because someone else bears the cost of those risks”. Jennings, in the Wall Street component of her novel, explores this very condition with great – should I say scary – clarity. It is particularly interesting to read her description and analysis of escalating greed, because it is set nearly a decade pre-GFC. It’s all there, though, and the cracks were showing even then. For Cath the moral dilemmas are real. Not only does she need to rationalise her personal moral values as a lefty feminist against her financial district job, but she has to be the carer (also decision maker) for her increasingly ill husband. This is complicated care that encompasses not only economic and physical demands, but also emotional, mental and philosophical. And this care also has, not surprisingly, a moral dimension.
The novel (a novella, really) is told in short chapters that alternate, though not rigidly so, between Cath’s life with Bailey and her work life. It is told first person, and Cath tells us, on the first page:
I will tell my story straight as I can, as straight as anyone’s crooked recollections allow. I will tell it in my own voice, although treating myself as another, observed, appeals.
In other words, it’s from life, but there is artifice. The novel opens with this brief introductory chapter, which is followed by a chapter describing her first meeting Mike. He also works at Niedecker Benecke investment bank, and also, like her, is a square peg in a round hole, though he’s been doing it for longer! He becomes somewhat of a teacher to her, as well as a sounding board, and a welcome like-mind.
From this set up, we flash back to Cath, her husband Bailey and his diagnosis, and we don’t return to the bank until Chapter 6. The story continues chronologically following Cath. We watch her work out how to work within the company, and we feel her pain as she tries to manage Bailey as he becomes less and less stable and predictable. Cath chronicles the hedge-fund crisis – the increasing greed, the living on (the belief in) “zero capital and infinite leverage” – in parallel with Bailey’s decline. A true coincidence, perhaps, but a writing choice too.
I loved Jennings’ writing. It’s clear and direct, but has a poetic sensibility. She describes the bank as:
a firm whose ethic was borrowed in equal parts from the Marines, the CIA and Las Vegas. A firm where women were about as welcome as fleas in a sleeping bag.
She describes the financial district, New York’s skyscrapers:
I looked at them and didn’t see architecture. I saw infestations of middle managers, tortuous chains of command, stupor-inducing meetings, ever-widening gyres of e-mail. I saw people scratching up dust like chickens and calling it work. I saw the devil whooping it up.
She sees the New York Fed, after bailing out hedge-funds, behaving “as if afflicted with Alzheimers” sticking with deregulation, letting the industry police itself, despite evidence to the contrary.
Meanwhile, Bailey’s decline is inexorable, he moves from home to an institution. He has a “living will” but it is ignored, so, she writes:
Scar on my soul be damned. He’d asked me to take care of it when the time came. Now I would. Mrs Death.
But far be it from me to spoil Cath’s story – except to say that as well as tackling Wall Street, Jennings also quietly buys into the euthanasia debate.
The good thing about Text Classics, besides their existence and excellent price, is that each classic is accompanied by a commissioned introduction. For Moral hazard it is by sport and business journalist Gideon Haigh. He concludes his introduction, which focuses on the financial aspect of the novel, with the statement that “Modern working life is replete with unpalatable compromises and perverse incentives”. Cath would probably say that this is true of life too. Moral hazard is a rare book in the way it looks not just at our contemporary globalised financial world, but more widely at work, our relationship to it, and the moral choices we make in work and in life. Drawn from life, yes, but a very worthy winner of the 2003 Christina Stead Award for Fiction!
Melbourne: Text Classics, 2015 (orig. pub. 2002)
(Review copy courtesy Text Publishing)
17 thoughts on “Kate Jennings, Moral hazard (Review)”
This is a very interesting post, Sue. Thank you. 🙂
I usually refrain from books that feature even a wee bit related to finance. But, ‘Moral Hazard’, from the title to the premise, sounds compelling. I intend to try it.
I totally understand that Deepika. Finance doesn’t sound like an exciting topic does it? But in the hands of a good writer anything can be interesting I think.
I have a copy of this yet to get to and I’m really looking forward to it. Text is amazing IMO.
Thanks Guy. I agree. It’s wonderful that they are about to publish their hundredth classic. Presumably that means the books are selling well enough. A wonderful initiative.
Snake? Never heard of it but after looking at the synopsis, it looks good.
It’s an excellent read Guy … Worth adding to your expanding list. (Did I tell you I’ve ordered the Zweig?)
Yes you did tell me, Gummie.
I have read ‘Moral Hazard’ back before I was blogging. I did include it in my list of ‘Twelve Excellent Novels of the Business and Work World’ with the following reference:
“Moral Hazard” by Kate Jennings (2002) – A moving novel about a financial speechwriter on Wall Street written by a financial speechwriter on Wall Street.
I don’t remember that list Tony. Will check it out.
I remember reading Moral Hazard some years back and remember I liked it a lot. I loved Snake. I think of her as an honest writer, she writes what she truly thinks. I think she could write a very interesting article on Australian politics.
Agree Meg. Very honest, a bit like Garner it seems to me … Though different in many ways too. More analytical, perhaps.
Like Tony I read this is my pre-blogging days, with my book group. To be honest, much of what you’ve drawn from it went over our collective heads, and I myself didn’t find it very engaging. But Snake (which I have reviewed) was different altogether and I really admired that. If that was drawn from life, there’s a man cringing somewhere due to Jennings’ vituperative pen!
Yes I liked Snake too, Lisa. With books like this, I love to look into how the author is doing what s/he’s doing. It often throws up all sorts of ideas I wouldn’t necessarily get otherwise. At least, I think it does!! I might be fooling myself of course!
Sounds like a good book, sad and intense. I was going to ask if there is a parallel between Wall Street and Alzheimers but you very nicely answered that by the end 🙂
You had a good question lined up Stefani … I think she still lives in NY. Would love to know what she’s doing now.
Pingback: ‘Moral Hazard’ by Kate Jennings – Reading Matters
Pingback: Moral Hazard by Kate Jennings #NovNov #AusReadingMonth