Some children I know, having decided that
millennium's end was high time for an elderly and mildly retarded
acquaintance of theirs to partake of the technological miracles of the
1980s, deposited a large VCR -- a là mode de VHS, as opposed to the
old Betamaxims I currently have to hand -- under my tree this past
Christmas. Liberated by their unexampled benevolence, I found myself,
early in January, able to sit in my living room and watch a VHS tape of a
movie directed by Margarethe von Trotta, Das Versprechen. The
Promise -- its English-language title -- is a 1994 film about life in
a Berlin divided by the Wall -- and I found it very moving. I noted with
interest that a person named Peter Schneider worked on its
screenplay. Peter Schneider is, if the same person, also a writer who, I
thought, had written books as well as screenplays about the Wall. It
didn't take me long to find The German Comedy: Scenes of Life After
the Wall, trans. Philip Boehm and Leigh Hafrey (New York: Farrar
Straus Giroux, 1991 (originally published in German as Extreme
Mittelage: Eine Reise durch das deutsche Nationalgefühl, 1990).
Outdated journalism might not seem an especially attractive
recommendation, to be sure. I can only say that I found his book both
funny and interesting enough to be well worth the couple of hours that
reading it required. Worth it, that is, even now, almost a decade [!]
after the events Schneider commemorates. I've read a few other books
about the collapse of the Wall and related matters. A report written by
moonlighting historian and journalist manqué Robert
Darnton, Berlin Journal 1989-1989 (New York: Norton, 1991),
gave me pleasure and instruction when it appeared. Not much later, I read
Slavenka Drakulic's How We Survived Communism and Even Laughed
(New York: Norton, 1992). She dealt with life under, and then the
collapse of, the Communist government in what was already, when her book
appeared, becoming the wreckage of Yugoslavia (perhaps a bit less of an
advertisement for post-Communist felicities than she could have desired?).
Another book I read at roughly the same period dealt with a different
aspect of recent German life. It did not, as I recall, emphasize greatly
Berlin's East-West division. But I remember reading passages aloud from
Susan Neiman's Slow Fire: Jewish Notes from Berlin (New York:
Schocken, 1992) to innocent bystanders. Moments like, for instance,
Neiman's disquisition on the association of Jews with that most un-German
of foodstuffs -- viz.: garlic -- are simply fall-down funny. Schneider's
book interested me because it tries to come to grips, albeit in some
measure through ironic humor rather than confrontation, with the
failures of leftist political ideas, and to do so from the
perspective of someone apparently sympathetic to such ideas. These
failures the disastrous realities of East Berlin and East Germany seemed,
in the wake of the collapse of their separate identities, to embody -- an
impression the past decade has done little to alter. The questions
Schneider asks, whether directly or ironically, are real and important
questions. They remain important ten years later, as an exultant,
resurgent, and generally triumphalist conservatism, "neo-" or otherwise,
continues to assume the complete irrelevance of all leftist or, God
forgive me, "socialist" critiques of the current (and aptly-named) new
world order. Schneider asks a lot of serious questions in this
book. His vivid sense of humor is a strategy not only for certain kinds of
avoidance but also for palatability. The humor begins with the writer,
seated at his computer in Hanover on November 9th, 1989,
writing an essay for a French newspaper about what would happen if the
Wall came tumbling down. A friend bursts into his office to tell him that
the Wall has in fact come tumbling down. Unable to believe the news, he
calls another friend in Berlin. That friend, on the spot, knows nothing
about any collapse of the Wall. However, since Schneider is calling from
a great distance -- the Hanover he's calling from is in New Hampshire, not
Germany --the friend offers to look out of his window, watch the news, and
check for him . . . The humor continues when, back in Berlin after the
Dartmouth fall semester has ended, Schneider tries to reconstruct the
responses of people who were actually there for the fall. One couple,
spending that evening in bed on a non-political topic (but with the
television on), had gathered vaguely -- although inattentively -- that
Helmut Kohl had done something stupid yet again. Concentrating, however,
on other matters entirely, not till morning, when they could smell
omnipresent and distinctive East Berlin petrol fumes from their apartment
balcony, did they grasp what had happened. Others recalled the behavior of
East Berliners suddenly footloose and fancy free in the West. Someone
named Richard Chaim Schneider -- a relation of the author? (hmmm) -- wrote
a letter to Die Zeit about a t-shirt that reads "NOV. 9 -- I WAS
THERE!": "I was breathless at the sight of this T shirt. . . . What was
happening? Were the Germans suddenly admitting they'd been there? On
November 9, 1938? On Kristallnacht?" (pp. 32-33). But Schneider is not
simply telling funny stories. In the mode of Julien Benda, he also asks
questions about what people knew, and what they should have known,
about the lives, and the system under which those lives were lived, of
their compatriots in the East. These are really questions, he knows, about
what might be considered the responsibility of intellectuals to learn
about and report what was happening to other people. This
statement is interesting for its use both of the first-person plural and
the word "threat." We intellectuals, trained to be defiant, tend to feel
flattered when someone classifies us as a "threat." That is why we ought
to identify the "threat." The great crimes against society in this century
were committed in the name of some "idea." We intellectuals discovered the
idea, though usually not its execution, and we writers supported it and
sang its praises. And all too often we sang the praises not only of the
idea, but also of its execution. Writers and intellectuals have recently
taken to claiming that they should be counted among the endangered
species. That may be. But for the sake of accuracy, one should add that
they are also among the most dangerous species. One has heard this argument before. -- in,
e.g., the opening pages of Czeslaw Milocz's magnificent polemic,
The Captive Mind, recently re-issued by Vintage for a new
generation of readers. (This is a book I was given -- when I was, perhaps,
fourteen? -- by an old family friend who was also a Commentary
writer from the days when that now thoroughly despicable rag was somewhat
more respectably associated with the anti-Stalinist left. He wanted to
"inoculate" me against the dreaded foe, Communism. Alas, it worked.) Of
course, matters are not this simple. Is Marx "responsible" for
Stalin? (Or, in a different, if perhaps analogous, historical conundrum
that also interests me, is Oppenheimer to blame for the use of the
bomb whose construction he oversaw?) Hard cases make bad law, I've been
told; and it may be similarly possible that hard questions make for bad
history: bad analogies, badly misconceived or just plain simple -- or
simple-minded -- answers. Yet hard cases come along whether or not lawyers
and judges want them; and so do hard questions. The effort to deal with
them, well or ill, ought to be something we try our hands at now and
again. Schneider's German Comedy does. I value its effort perhaps
more than I value its answers: at least it asks good, hard
questions. I'm co-teaching a
course this spring semester on the experience of
war in the twentieth century (a far cry from the Shakespearian and
non-Shakespearian plays I've been teaching for the past couple of
semesters). Having just finished it himself, my co-teacher passed on to me
a copy of a novel written by David Piper -- writing under the name
of "Peter Towry" -- called Trial by Battle (London: Hutchinson,
1959). Piper's subject is the British Indian Army fighting in Malaya
in 1942. Not a very good time, unfortunately, for the British in southeast
Asia, it was also not a very good time for the characters in Piper's
book. This is a short and remarkably brutal novel, filled with
characters most of whom -- with the notable exception of the Indians who
serve in the British Indian Army, although this exception may result
merely from the author's distance from them -- are beneath contempt. But
it is also a very good tale about what the experience of war does -- none
of it good, you may be surprised to hear -- to those who take part in it.
Piper handles his ugliness with a certain kind of restraint that I found
remarkable. I don't know if this book remains in print but it is worth
reading, if you can locate a copy and have any interest in the literature
of World War II. Michael C. C. Adams, The
Best War Ever: America and World War II, The American Moment, ed.
Stanley I. Kutler (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994),
is another book I recently read as background for the course I'm now
teaching. Adams wants to demythologize the myth of "the good war" that has
grown up around World War II without simultaneously denying that it was a
war that needed to be fought and won by the Allies. He looks skeptically
at such matters as the failure of appeasement. E.g., we must not appease
Saddam Hussein because we learned the lessons of appeasement in
Chamberlain's treatment of Hitler, did we not? But, Adams notes, while
appeasement was tried (and surely failed) in Europe, America followed a
distinctly non-appeasement strategy in the Pacific in its dealings
with Japan -- and that strategy surely failed, too, and just as
completely. Standing up to the bastards is not an entirely foolproof
alternative to appeasement, in short. Other myths fare just as badly. I
could have wished for better and more exciting writing; less
repetitiousness of structure from chapter to chapter; and a style
calculated for readers able to parse their way through sentences composed
at something better than ninth-grade reading levels. Clio did not breathe
upon this book, or even in its general direction. On the other hand, it
was, even so, a book I am happy to have read. I've done a good deal of
reading on this topic over the years. I still learned some things from
Adams that repaid my time. Isabel
Colegate's 1980 novel, The Shooting Party is the first book we
asked our students to read for this class. (We also asked them to read Theodore Roethke's "The Victorians", a very short
poem, and some other works, including an essay in a book by Elmer Davis
that I mention below.) Colegate's
novel, much praised when it appeared, was later (1984) made into quite a
lovely movie (with James Mason, among others). Now it is out of print, at
least in the U.S. Too bad: it richly deserves the praise it got when it
first appeared, despite what our students felt was a perhaps unhappy
tendency to hit them over the head with its point. I found it more
complicated than they did when I read it years ago, and I still find it
more complicated than they did rereading it now. Set at a pheasant shoot
on a country house in October of 1913, the novel looks at a society that
has reached moral and other forms of exhaustion, and, in a vague way,
knows this about itself, hoping that, through war, it will somehow be
"cleansed" and reinvigorated. I cannot speak warmly enough about
Colegate's ability to draw her characters with individuality and affection
(ironic affection, maybe, but affection nonetheless). I cannot, on
the other hand, speak warmly about what -- when I read it this time --
seemed to me the novel's "Tory morality." Colegate's misfits are
ludicrous, marginal, or both -- and, by novel's end, several of them are
dead or, we learn in a short coda, will be dead (at Loos, at the Somme,
and so on), along with the world in which we have met them. I enjoyed
rereading this book enormously, even as I disliked what I think, this time
through it, are its politics. It was, in addition, a pleasure to speak
about it even with the surprisingly cynical young. And it is a pleasure to
remember it here for anyone who has either never encountered it or
forgotten its virtues. "On the Eve:
Reminiscences of 1913" is the essay by Elmer Davis that we asked
our students to look at. It appears in a book that had fourteen
circulations between 1940 and 1941, does not seem to have been read again
until 1960, when one person took it out -- maybe two? -- and was later
taken out again in 1978 and 1992: Not to Mention the War
(Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1940). A pity that it gets so little
attention: this is not only a book by another of my Indiana writers [!]
but also one that offers a great deal of fun and maybe even a greater deal
of interest. "1913 was the peak year of human felicity," Davis's first
paragraph tells us (p. 81), and, he continues, "we of 1913 found a better
here and now than any generation which will follow us for some decades to
come. . . . [I]n our time the assets of the estate had accumulated to a
legacy beyond all imagining, and we had not yet discovered that they were
offset by some appalling liabilities. In other words, we came up before
the war -- just before the war -- in what seems to the retrospective eye
an age of incredible innocence and security" (p. 82). Davis rests much of
the veracity of his claim on a foundation of recollected male-female
relationships and perceptions about female social (but not economic)
aspirations. These make for very peculiar reading at a time of
post-feminist backlash from the extremely ignorant young and the even more
extremely vicious right; yet, if one knows -- now! -- that Davis doesn't
really get it, one also senses that his heart and mind are both in the
right place. It is fascinating to see him grapple -- here and in other
essays in this volume -- with this and related issues. The volume
includes essays on George Bernard Shaw and Richard Wagner. "The Imperfect
Wagnerite" is so extraordinary that no summary would be believable, let
alone an inducement to find and read this essay, as you should do
even if you read nothing else in the book. Davis discusses
restricted summer resorts in "On the Gentility of Gentiles" (rather more
winningly, in most respects, than the old warhorse, Gentleman's
Agreement, which I watched yet again 'tother day). He tries hard to
find the "right" tone but -- in part because Davis hasn't the slightest
ability to imagine what is just about to happen to Jews in Europe -- the
essay can no longer be read as he intended. A mordant little essay, "On
Not Being Dead, As Reported" -- once after being sunk in the Channel in
1916, during World War I; once again after the great New England hurricane
of 1938 -- looks forward, as it were, to the inevitable third report. That
one, Davis is confident, he is unlikely to be able to deny. "On Being Kept
by a Cat" deals with a topic on which I also have a certain expertise; I
loved it. A final essay on the Roman Emperor Gallienus, clearly written by
someone who has been reading Roman history with a weather eye on its
contemporary relevance, proved enjoyably to lack the historical
objectivity we imagine to be a virtue in such essays. The opening essay on
"The 'Logic' of History" is, like the book review of recent works by
Hilaire Belloc and Gerald Heard that follows it, an utterly perfect --and
utterly hilarious -- introduction to the liberal mind at work. It would,
in short, be difficult to imagine a book of such apparently slight works
that offers so good, if so oblique, an introduction to a world now as
irretrievably lost to us as 1913 was to the Elmer Davis who wrote "On the
Eve" (originally published in 1931). That it also offers us so magnificent
an introduction to American liberalism in its period is an added
lagniappe. Unlike most readers in 1999, I suspect, I remember
Elmer Davis -- not that he was anyone I ever met, of course. When I was a
little boy, he was a radio news commentator (on New York City's radio
station WJZ?) whose fifteen-minute news summary and analysis my parents
listened to every night. My idea of the "Hoosier twang" has nothing at all
to do with any Indianans I have ever met: it has everything to do with
Davis, night after night, on New York radio -- a voice I've never heard
anyone come close to in intonation or pitch. My parents' admiration became
mine. My best friend gave me, for one birthday (my twelfth or
thirteenth?), a copy of But We Were Born Free, Davis's
anti-McCarthy book (I don't think I still have it, but copies are easy to
find). It has taken me till now to discover that he was also a novelist; I
intend to dig up some of his novels and read them, and may also go back to
his 1950s books, as well. Here is a writer waiting for
readers. Frank
McGuinness is the author of a version of Electra I happened to
see (at Princeton's McCarter Theater) last fall (it's still running in New
York as I write). It presented us with the excellent, if somewhat
stagehoggy, Zoë Wanamaker as Electra, Claire Bloom as Clytemnestra,
and Pat Carroll (whom I'd once seen as a simply smashing Volpone) as one
member of the Chorus: a spendthrift production indeed! And an immensely
powerful one. McGuinness is not only an adapter of other people's plays;
he writes his own, as well. I've recently read -- as it were, for more
background for my course -- his stunning play, Observe the Sons of
Ulster Marching Towards the Somme (London: Faber, 1986). But I
was wrong: it ain't "background." It is, instead, amazing. I cannot
imagine what it must have been like to see performed: very nearly
unbearable, I would imagine. It opens with Pyper, now an old man -- I
found it not quite clear whether he is "alive" or "dead," and, the more I
think about it, the more I think that my uncertainty is one the character
shares -- awakening to confront yet again the ghosts of the day his
comrades from the 36th (Ulster) Division (and he with them?)
died, July 1, 1916. Whom is he addressing?
-- his spectral comrades? the author? the audience? God? all of the
above? Farley Mowat's painfully brilliant memoir of his World War
II service (And No Birds Sang (Boston: Atlantic, Little, Brown,
1979)) once taught me a bit about the role played by Canadian service
in World War I in creating a sense of Canadian national identity. I had
known nothing comparable -- not even known that there was anything
comparable to know -- about Northern Ireland and Orange Ulster. McGuinness
does the job. That the Somme's first day was also the anniversary of the
Battle of the Boyne gave it, I discover, a nearly mystical significance
for Paisleyite Orangemen ("Paisleyite," of course, avant la
lettre). The sacrifices of 1916 Flanders, coming as they did hard on
the heels of the Easter Rebellion at home, came to seem more than
sufficient justification for the continued union of North and Britain, for
continued resistance to union with the twenty-four counties of the
Republic. It is Pyper's growing awareness of the savage falsity underlying
this sense of justification, of its rootedness in the sheer waste
of that day, that gives this play part of its power to resonate for a
contemporary audience. But the events themselves still resonate (or so I
think), as does the rage they generate. Although of a much later
generation and not at all English, even I can sometimes imagine no more
fitting an eternity for General Sir Douglas Haig than to spend it being
torn apart by machine-gun fire and blown to pieces by artillery in No
Man's Land. Oh, well. McGuinness' play -- whatever the wrath to which it
gives unhappy rise -- is utterly riveting. I gather that it has been
included in volumes (also from Faber) of his collected plays; so even if
this edition is no longer in print it should be easy to find. One does
tend rather to wish that someone would breathe a hortatory word or two
into Faber's corporate ear about the quality of paper the firm chooses for
its books. I read this play in a 1990 reprint of the 1986 original
edition: it is already yellowing. Faber is obviously a firm, both
historically and now, with much more than a merely decent modicum
of literary taste. One might have supposed that, by now, it would also
have thought it worth adding a dollop of sense and responsibility to its
publishing program, as well. Surely someone there knows
better? J[ean] J[acques] Fiechter's A
Masterpiece of Revenge (New York: Arcade, 1998) is a slight but
enjoyable tale about an art conservator gone bad. Jane Caldwell of the
Oxford Institute for Art Research tries -- but, you will be happy to know
fails -- to pull the Claude over the eyes of Charles Vermeille of the
Collège de France. Burdened by a deeply (if perhaps somewhat
schematically described) psychopathic upbringing, Jane tries first to
seduce the eminent Claude scholar. Since, when she makes this attempt, she
is so drunk that she cannot speak without slurring her words, she is not
-- despite her considerable physical attractions -- at her best, and
Charles, whose taste seems impeccable, does not bite. Her next efforts to
deal with him are somewhat more complex. Suffice it to say that she
attempts to seduce him in two different ways, one that regards his
professional expertise, Claude, and the other his one personal mania, his
son. It may be only a slight book, but I enjoyed it -- and its quite
hilarious resolution - anyway. (I have a passion for Claude myself.) I do
wish its publisher had provided some details -- any details --
about the book's original French appearance (in, I gather, 1997) and its
translator, who, so far as I can tell, is either Fiechter himself or
Anonymous. Two articles in
the 1998 volume of The American Scholar (vol. 67 [1998])
deal with The New Yorker and repay the attention of those who, like
me, continue to value what that magazine once produced. In the Winter
(67:1, pp. 27-48) issue, Dan Pinck remembers "A J. Liebling, A
Writer at Work: Old Days at The New Yorker." I happen to see
Liebling's grave every so often. It lies across the street -- together
with those of Pollack, Krasner, Stuart Davis, Jean Stafford, Frank O'Hara,
and a host of other notable and lamented dead -- from people I have
frequent occasion to visit. I also remember warmly many of his books.
(Anyone who has somehow managed to miss Liebling's The Earl of
Louisiana has, I feel, seriously misallocated his or her
reading time.) It has been years since I read Raymond Sokolov's admiring
biography, but Pinck's essay, though a shorter work, nicely supplements
it. And reminds me to reread Liebling a.s.a.p. Frances Kiernan
writes about "Fiction at The New Yorker" from the point of
view of someone who started work at the magazine right out of college and
eventually spent many years there as an editor in its fiction department.
Her essay appears in the Autumn issue (67:4, pp. 81-91). Allegedly
prompted to do so by the translation of Tina Brown to the yet-to-appear
Talk, and her replacement as editor by David Remnick, Kiernan
wonders if the fiction for which The New Yorker was once renowned
will return, after Brown, to a prominent place in the magazine's
publishing plans. Her wonder takes the form of recalling -- and defending
-- the fiction (so called "New Yorker fiction") that used to appear
in the magazine. She also describes both how fiction was found and edited
by her colleagues and herself and their relationships with their
authors. Kiernan's essay is, in fact, a vigorous discussion of why
fiction matters. That is, I imagine, one reason why the author of
Ex Libris, who is now also
the editor of The American Scholar, liked the essay enough to
publish it. I am very glad she did, very glad I bumped into and read
it. The same issue of The American
Scholar in which Kiernan recalls New Yorker fiction also
contains an essay by William Cronon, "'Only Connect . . . ': The Goals
of a Liberal Education" (67:4, pp. 73-80). This is a short essay --
too short, perhaps -- and it is also just a leeetle stiff and
earnest (and, for my taste, vague, too). Yet it is thoughtful and,
at a time when the value of what people like me do in the academies we
infest is under question, Cronon's effort to re-think and re-state some
fundamental notions about what all this stuff is for can only be
welcomed. A colleague and I are using this essay in a program with high
school seniors on their way to our own university. While I can think of
many other longer, fuller, richer, and -- maybe -- even "better" things
they might read, this essay, for its length, is provocative, interesting,
and on target enough to give them (we hope!) some things to think about
that are worth thinking about. If you also care about what
education is supposed to do, it might serve the same purpose for you,
too. I recently wrote very warmly about the
nineteen volumes of Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin series. This month I
find myself able to write, also warmly, about a sort of "precursor" to
that series. In a novel O'Brian originally published in 1959, a young
sailor and his friend, a person of scientific and medical bent, go off
with Captain Anson to sail the Pacific Ocean. The Unknown Shore
(rpt. New York: W. W. Norton, 1995) is a lovely tale. It may lack the
richness of characters developed over long stretches of time found in the
later series, set sixty and more years after Anson, but it offers a
sample, in small compass, of delights that O'Brian's later books provide
in full plenitude. If, before embarking on a long read, you're interested
in a preparatory -- or exploratory -- vorspeis, The Unknown
Shore is where you'll find it. Among the
books I am most enthusiastic about recommending this month is Roger
Grenier's Another November, trans. Alice Kaplan (Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 1998; originally Le Pierrot noir,
Paris, 1986). A spare, indeed a bleak, eighty-six pages in length,
really a "novelette" rather than a novel, this is a book for which any
words of "praise" would seem to me supererogatory in the extreme. Yet its
fragility resists summary -- or repels it. I could say that the book is
set in Pau just before, during, and after the Second World War. I could
add that Grenier's tale deals with collaboration and corruption. I might
also point out that it looks at love and its mis- and abuses; and looks,
more scarifyingly still, at its loss and absence. None of these little
announcements would give you any sense at all of the feel of this
book which, for all its bleakness, is one I found powerful, and, for all
its brevity, one I found it necessary to read very slowly indeed.
Not that I mean even to imply even indirectly any problems with
Kaplan's translation! -- rather, I mean to say that this is a book one
quickly realizes must be savored every step of the way. It is a beautiful
book, despite the lack of beauty of its subject. I can only urge it upon
you with the comment that, even if you find it nasty and brutish (which I
don't for a moment believe you will), it is at least short.
Most of my reading during the past
month turns out to have concerned the course on the literature of war
during the twentieth century that I'm teaching, together with a colleague,
this spring semester. Most of what I've read is, as a result, so well
known that there seems almost no reason even to mention it. On the
other hand . . . Well, on the other hand, for one thing, it's been at
least thirty years since I read -- and, but for this course, I would
surely never have contemplated anything so low as rereading --
Erich Maria Remarque's All Quiet on the Western Front. (I
read it in the 1929 translation by A. W. Wheen; various Fawcett
[New York] paperback editions of this version exist.) In fact, this
novel got into the course only because the book originally scheduled for
inclusion, Siegfried Sassoon's Sherston's Progress, turned up o.p.
(I was therefore particularly pleased to find a decent hardbound copy of
Sherston at Albion, a nice used bookstore in Las Vegas, during a
March week spent vacationing in Utah and Nevada.) I remembered Remarque's
novel as a species of schmaltz mit saltz. Now that I've reread (and
taught) it, I find myself wondering why. That recollection cannot be
entirely idiosyncratic: my teaching partner had the same low expectations
of the book and, evidently, for the same reason, i.e., his remembrances of
the book from an adolescent reading of it. Yet his response to reading it
this time, like mine, was: "better than expected." Maybe it is precisely
because our expectations were so low that the book worked for us.
It would need to have been genuinely awful to meet our low
expectations -- and, whatever else it may be, that awful it
isn't. The book worked for our students, too, however. Their responses
-- genuinely warm -- did surprise us. They may also be better
indicators of your likely response, if you don't already know the book,
than either of ours. Even if you've never read the book, I cannot
imagine that, in the wake of the Gary Cooper movie version, I need to say
anything at all about the novel here. Its plot is as simple as they come.
A boy volunteers to fight for Germany immediately following the outbreak
of the First World War. Posted to the Western Front, he discovers that
war, as William T. Sherman called a different one, is "hell." That's all
there is. There ain't no more. And it turns out to be enough. Shortly
after I finished Remarque's book, by the way, I read the catalogue of a
library exhibition about Remarque. Thomas Thornton's A Time to Live:
The Life and Writings of Erich Maria Remarque. A Centennial
Celebration was published last year by the Fales Collection
(Bobst Library) at New York University (New York, 1998; information about
price and availability are available, I presume, on request). This
catalogue did exactly what a good catalogue should do: it made me
want to read more by, and learn more about, Remarque. To put no finer a
point on matters, in fact, I thought it a terrific piece of work. Since
copies are surely easily acquired and cheap, it would be worth writing or
e-mailing to Fales for information about how to get a copy -- if, that is,
Remarque is someone about whom you are at all curious. If there is little to say about Remarque's All Quiet
on the Western Front, there can be even less to say about Ernest
Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms (Scribner paperback). Yet
curiously enough, that little is almost exactly the same -- for me, anyway
-- about both books. I last taught A Farewell to Arms over thirty
years ago, having, I think, read it for the first time when I was still in
high school or college. I can just barely grasp the long-ago memory of
feeling vaguely surprised that a "great" book should also prove to be so
readable (a reaction that allowed me a bit of intellectual preening for
having read it, as well). Since then, even more preening if somewhat less
intellectual, I have changed my mind about Hemingway, whom I now
understand to have been a much less important or good writer than I had
thought when I was still very young. Once again, it turned out, and to
our mutual surprise, that my colleague felt essentially the same way. He
had had exactly the same experiences with this book as those I recalled.
His initial delight in the glories of this master of American literary
modernism disappeared in a slow but apparently inexorable erosion of an
old (and, once, presumably culturally standard) assumption that Hemingway
"mattered" in any way at all. So it came as a shock to both of us that
we loved the book when we reread it for our class. To be sure, it
teaches well, always a help when estimating a book's merits if you happen
to be in the teaching game. Our students liked it, also a help, and for
the same reason. It reads well: the guy could write, legions of parodies
or no. True, the book contains all kinds of embarrassments. One finds
oneself far too frequently wishing that Hemingway, for whom the earth
seems to have moved much too easily when he wrote about sex or love, had
avoided writing about them altogether. Catherine's self-effacement in her
relationship with Lt. Henry has not aged well. One could go on in this
vein all too easily. Yet the point is not the book's flaws but its merits,
and they are many. That much-parodied style, the studied imagery, the
sense of the war as a scene of enormous loss and uncounted costs: these
are achievements that I found as irresistible now as when, in my teens, I
encountered them for the first time. My cynical expectation that the
novel would function as a counterpoint to the "good" novels about World
War I included in the syllabus proved as wrong-headed as my intention to
leave Remarque out of the syllabus altogether. This novel, like his, bore
up to rereading very successfully indeed. You might find it worthwhile
paying it renewed attention, too. Frederic
Manning's 1929 The Middle Parts of Fortune: Somme & Ancre 1916
(which I reread in my trusty old 1977 St. Martin's Press reprint, now --
unaccountably! -- out of print both from St. Martin's and from Penguin)
was Hemingway's touchstone World War I novel. Less well known than it
ought to be, the novel holds up well. Unrelievedly grim, it gives its
readers a nearly entirely satisfying illusion that, having finished the
book, they know what "life in the trenches" must have been like. Muddy,
drunken, and surrounded by death, the picture is unpleasant in the
extreme. And the book, like the two mentioned immediately above, is --
warts (Hemingway's opinion to the contrary notwithstanding) and all --
extraordinary. Ernst Jünger's In
Stahlgewittern: aus dem Tagebuch eines Stosstrupführer (1920)
is by no means as well-known among English-speaking readers as it deserves
to be. Nor is this book as well-known, for that matter, as Remarque's very
different Im Westen nichts Neues. A lot of obvious reasons help
explain its relative neglect. Remarque, for one, did not like the War. His
experiences made him a pacifist. "We" like pacific Germans,
particularly those who stand in welcome contrast to their more bellicose
compatriots. Jünger, unfortunately, is one of the "more bellicose"
of his compatriots. He loved the War. His experiences sent him, after the
Armistice, into one or another of the Freikorps units that made Germany so
interesting a place in "de-militarized" defeat, and he would later return
to France as a member, that time, of a more victorious army than the
Kaiser's. (In Paris, by now a famous writer, he would hobnob with
intellectual chummies who didn't mind chumming with representatives of the
occupying power.) Lacking any doubts about the justice of Germany's
cause; with a chivalric sense (even in the midst of this first
modern, industrialized war) of the nature of combat; proud of his wounds;
much (and significantly) be-medalled for his courage, Jünger had "a
good war." Its nature is what he recalls in this memoir, not
"fictionalized," of the First World War as experienced by a soldier with
the 73rd Hanoverian Fusiliers on the Western Front.
Translated in 1929 (and reprinted in 1996 by Howard Fertig [New York;
paperback]) as Storm of Steel: From the Diary of a German Storm-Troop
Officer on the Western Front, this is a book I was glad to have
available for our students and glad to encounter myself. We speak glibly
of the monstrousness of Prussian militarists. It seemed important to
remember, as this book reminds its readers very clearly, that the
traditions we associate with that cliché are internalized,
embodied, and realized by human beings who are not all that
different from ourselves: by real people, in short, who are not
necessarily "monsters." I don't think I'd have been enchanted by an
opportunity to have been a friend of the noticeably long-lived (1895-1998)
Herr Jünger (not an opportunity I can easily imagine coming my way in
any circumstances). He may not have been a monster but he seems
nonetheless to have skated awfully close to the wind. Nonetheless, I am
enchanted by the opportunity to read (and teach) this book. It gives us a
voice that needs to be heard at its best, not its worst, if its appeal is
to be understood. And its fascination cannot possibly be
overstated. Rebecca West's The Return of
the Soldier is a short, powerful novel written during the War and
published in 1918. Like Isabel
Colegate's The Shooting Party, it is perhaps better known as a
movie than as a book. Too bad: it is a very interesting book.
Penguin reprinted it (with a good short introduction by Samuel
Hynes) in 1998. Remorselessly clear-sighted in its depiction of
those class and gender roles that Colegate, too, noticed as part of the
"baggage" with which England went to war in 1914, The Return of the
Soldier may strike some readers as too slight, too schematic, and too
conventionally critical, to work. For me, those criticisms seem, finally,
to miss the point. Paul Fussell once remarked of World War I poets that
they eschewed the often-confusing technical devices of literary modernism
not because they were literary trogs but rather because they wanted to be
understood. I think West may write with the same purpose. This is a
book that does not suggest the grip of emotion recollected in tranquility.
Its author is very angry. I read only one book
this month that had nothing to do with my course. Since it is
merely a comic book, few readers will be interested, I am sure. That
would, however, be your mistake. Ben Katchor's The Jew of New
York (New York: Pantheon, 1998), is -- like Art Spiegelmann's very
different Maus -- a comic book that lies, quite simply, beyond
praise. (Lawrence Weschler wrote well, if too briefly, about Katchor in "A
Wanderer in the Perfect City," The New Yorker [August 9, 1993], pp.
58-67.) I cannot begin to describe, let alone to explain, all of the
myriad joys of this piece. Katchor looks, inter alia, at Mordecai
Noah's attempt, during the 1820s, to establish Israel on Belle Isle (in
the Niagara River outside Buffalo). He considers the relationships of
Native Americans to the ten lost tribes of Israel; efforts to carbonate
Lake Erie and then tap it for seltzer for New York City residential
customers; and nineteenth-century linguistic studies. His portrayal of the
trapper's life, of nineteenth-century religious and cult behavior, or of
popular and theatrical culture in early nineteenth-century New York,
cannot be praised highly enough. The view he offers up of
nineteenth-century American broadside and pamphlet literature is, if you
happen to be in the business of dealing with such stuff -- as I am --
side-splitting. This is a book that glances in so many different
directions that a reader may not be sure that it is going anywhere at all.
In fact, however, it is as gloriously comic a view of American life as I
have encountered anywhere -- and yes, I do know what its "form" is! The
Jew of New York is propelled by its author's sense of the absurdity
and pathos of much American ambition. Who can care about comic book
characters? You can. Give it a shot. Leon Wieseltier's "After Memory" -- an essay
first published on the occasion of the opening of the Holocaust Museum in
Washington, D.C. -- originally appeared in The New Republic (May
3, 1993). It was later reprinted in The New Republic Reader:
Eighty Years of Opinion and Debate, ed. Dorothy Wickenden (New York:
New Republic Books / Basic Books, 1994). I read the essay in
Wickenden's anthology on the enthusiastic recommendation of a student
currently taking my war class and found it quite moving. Wieseltier
considers what it means to "remember" the Holocaust and asks what it means
especially for Americans to remember it. Not a particularly
pleasant essay, it is a thoughtful piece anyway, well worth the few
minutes it will take to find and the additional few minutes that reading
it will require. The New Republic, where
Wieseltier's essay first appeared, is not a journal I ordinarily read,
although other people than the student who recommended Wieseltier to me
(and who has interned there) have also told me that, whatever I may think
of the magazine's current political slant (which is marvelously little),
its cultural reportage is extremely good. True or not, these arguments
have failed to convince me. Reading Wieseltier's essay and thinking
about The New Republic nonetheless reminded me of one of the most
interesting books about American politics and American political
journalism I've read in several years. Perhaps not surprisingly, it's a
book that deals in large part with The New Republic. It's
Charles Forcey's The Crossroads of Liberalism: Croly, Weyl,
Lippmann, and the Progressive Era, 1900-1925 (1961; rpt. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1967 [a Galaxy paperback]). Herbert Croly,
Walter Weyl, and Walter Lippmann founded The New Republic in 1914.
They quickly found themselves, as Roosevelt Progressives, enmeshed --
which is just where they wanted to be -- in the Bull Moose campaign.
Internationalist, interventionist (World War I had begun during the summer
of 1914), and intellectuals seeking active and influential involvement in
the American political process, they and their journal make for an
extraordinarily fascinating case study of how "ideas" and "power" engage
(and fail to engage) with one another. I am sure that specialists
have by now, and in fact long ago, digested Forcey and moved on to other
and newer issues in the history of American progressivism. I'm not a
specialist, but I found this book fascinating anyway, and very
informative. It's readable, which helps. Anyone with the remotest interest
in any of the topics it concerns -- The New Republic and its
history; American attitudes towards World War I, intervention, and
internatioalism generally; the growth of an assumption that government
intervention in the social fabric might be necessary to assure not only
equity but also the survival of that fabric; and the role of intellectuals
and the intellectual press in American politics -- will, I think, enjoy
this book, however dated it may be, as much as I did.
The first book I read this month -- like the majority
of the books I read last month -- was a book I picked up for my war
literature class: Bertolt Brecht's Mother Courage and Her
Children (translated by Eric Bentley, a Grove paperback). I found
it, as always, nearly unbearable -- by which I mean that this play is, for
me, so powerful that it is almost as hard to read as it is to
watch. I've seen the play on a number of occasions: long ago, in New York,
with Anne Bancroft; most recently in London with Diana Rigg. That last
production was at the National Theatre on the South Bank. After sitting
through a performance so stunning that I couldn't always look at the
stage, I walked out, crossed the bridge to the Embankment tube stop, and
headed to Victoria for the main line train to Brighton. The tube struck me
as eerily silent. Always a fast study, I realized that people were reading
their newspapers, and cribbed a look at the headlines. I had wandered out
of a play about the wartime deaths of children into news of the massacre
at Dunblaine.
Mother Courage simply says it all. There are many wonderful
books about this century's wars -- how fortunate we are, to have so many
of both wars and books about them to choose from! -- but Brecht,
writing about the seventeenth century's Thirty Years War, needs come no
closer than that to the present to speak directly to and about it. A great
play, Mother Courage is one I am glad, as it were, to see and to
read again every few years. Its pleasures are peculiar, indeed painful,
but its magnificence is simply amazing.
The March 1999 issue of The Atlantic Monthly
(283:3, 51-76) contains a long essay by David M. Kennedy, "Victory
at Sea," on the United States Navy in World War II. Rather like the
Richard Rodgers score for the old television series from which Kennedy's
title comes, this is an essay of interesting bits (it is, in fact,
excerpted from Kennedy's new Oxford volume on U.S. history from the
Depression through the War: Freedom from Fear: The American People in
Depression and War 1923-1945, The Oxford History of the United States,
vol. 9 [1999]); and, like that score, it never quite coheres. I read it,
of course, with interest anyway -- and I learned things from it; it's by
no means a waste of time. But I left it sadly dissatisfied.
Early in April, I happened upon the USS Pampanito, a World War II
submarine that has been transmogrified into a National Historic Site and
is now on permanent display at Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco harbor.
From this monument, I got a better sense of how gruesome Kennedy's subject
was for the people who lived it -- and for the people who died it -- than
from the remarkably abstract and bloodless account of it the
Atlantic saw fit to print. The site includes a map with marks, many
conjectural, showing where drowned American World War II submarines lie. I
think I learned more from the map than I learned from Kennedy's article.
That article ultimately suffers, in my mind irremediably, from its
failure, while it looks at matters of Grand Strategy and (with respect
especially to the Battle of Midway) the Fortunes of War, to recall that
individual human beings fought and died, often horribly, in these heroic
events. "Five hundred men!" cries Patrick O'Brian's victorious Captain
Aubrey, when a shot from his vessel suddenly breaks up a Dutch man-of-war
in Antarctic seas and it sinks like a stone. Kennedy never sounds that
note, and never notices that its absence is problematical. Those who decry
the dearth of narrative history on the great themes might well ponder the
price that kind of history paid, and, in works like this one, continues to
pay, for its clean, well-lighted bird's eye view. It isn't grubby, and it
isn't true.
We also read James Jones'
Guadalcanal novel, The Thin Red Line, and Joseph Heller's
Catch-22. Remarkably different from one another, and remarkably
good, these are both books that need no words at all from me. But I should
quickly add that, if you happen not to know one or the other of
them, both are well worth the time you'll spend reading them.
(They're both long books.)
Michael Frayn's Copenhagen (London: Methuen
Drama, 1998) is a play expected to open in New York during the coming
(1999-2000) season. I will run to see it, having now read a copy of
it brought back from England by a friend who saw it there and guessed it
might interest me. It did.
The play takes place some indeterminate time after the deaths of its
three characters. All of them have met, somewhere or other, to try to
recall the details of a visit one of them paid the other two (a man and
wife) during 1941. This visit, for various reasons, was eventually to
attract a great deal of attention from other people, as well. The three
dead people examine a variety of possible explanations for -- indeed, some
not always similar memories of -- their meeting, trying to reconstruct its
causes and progress, which each remembers slightly differently. A
meditation, obviously enough, on the vagaries of human memory,
Frayn's play also meditates on the difficulties (David
M. Kennedy, are you listening?) of human history.
The characters are Niels and Margrethe Bohr (they are the man and wife)
and Werner Heisenberg (their visitor). All of them led lives that
attracted, even during their own lifetimes, attention from many other
people as well as from themselves. Several circumstances of their 1941
meeting were particularly interesting.
Bohr, a Dane, was still living in Copenhagen, a city then occupied by
the Nazis, for whose government Heisenberg was running a nuclear weapons
program in Germany. Heisenberg made the difficult journey to wartime
Denmark in order to visit the half-Jewish Bohr, his old mentor and
collaborator in physics (both men were Nobel prize-winners, Bohr in 1922,
Heisenberg in 1932). He wanted, quite specifically, to speak with Bohr
about the practical usefulness of uranium in constructing a fission bomb.
Did he want help? If so, did he think that someone whose own life was
threatened by the racist policies of the government for which he worked
would supply it? Or was he trying to warn the Allies about the existence
of a German nuclear program -- banking, that is, on Bohr's continued
ability to communicate with physicists in the west? (Bohr would in fact
eventually escape from Denmark through Sweden; he reached the United
States while the Manhattan Project was under way; and he did indeed warn
the Allies, as others too had done, about German interest in developing
nuclear weapons.) Were Heisenberg's efforts to build a German atom bomb
serious, or was he trying to scuttle the Nazi project to keep such a
weapon out of Hitler's hands? Among many other questions about this
history, and these people, and what we (and they) remembered about their
pasts, these questions stand out. They go alongside other questions:
about, for example, the moral responsibilities of scientists for the work
they do (questions Bohr escapes, in Fayn's play, no more than Heisenberg);
or about the teacher-student relationship, and the nature of intellectual
and other kinds of collaboration.
The play could all too easily have resembled a tract. It does not; it
is instead a small miracle. Get it. Read it. And then, if you can, go see
it.
The same person who brought me my copy of
Copenhagen also brought me a copy of another play she'd seen in
London, this one Conor McPherson's The Weir (1997; rpt. London:
Nick Hern, 1998). I read Copenhagen while sitting in an airport
awaiting a long-delayed flight to Las Vegas; I read The Weir a few
weeks later at 35,000 feet on the way to San Francisco. When I finished
it, and pulled out my as-yet-unread copy of that day's New York
Times, I found it contained Brantley's review of The Weir -- a
rave -- which had just opened in New York. After my return from
California, I picked up The New Yorker, read Lahr, and found that
he dissed it.
I have yet to see the New York production, but my reading of the play
predisposes me to Brantley's point of view. A Dublin woman and four men
talk with one another in a rural pub in Ireland, in a part of the
countryside to which the woman has just moved for reasons we will discover
as their conversation proceeds. I liked "listening" to them (through my
inner ear, of course, and despite its inaccurate and badly-accented Irish
English) and felt that their conversation worked. Brantley agreed; Lahr
did not. I'm not sure that this difference matters a great deal,
however. I think the play is less concerned with these
conversations -- largely the stories four of these five people tell one
another - than with the stories themselves: the fictions by
which we live and through which we relate to others and to our own pasts.
It's a play worth seeing, if you can, and certainly well worth
reading.
J. K. Rowlings's Harry Potter and the Sorceror's
Stone (New York: Scholastic Books, 1998) -- it was published in
the U.K. in 1997 as . . . and the Philosopher's Stone) --
is apparently the first children's book to hit The New York Times
bestseller list since E. B. White's Stuart Little. It richly
deserves to be there.
Young Potter, orphaned at infancy, has been raised by unsympathetic,
indeed quite horrible, relatives. They treat him poorly (à la
mode de Cinderella) and keep him away from knowledge of significant
aspects of his own history. One day, it comes time for young Harry to
enter school. A somewhat surprising set of characters comes by to get and
equip him for this transition. Harry, it turns out, is destined for
boarding school, but it is not your dreary old Eton or Winchester towards
which he is headed. He is going to magic school, for he is the son of two
great magicians whose deaths at the hands of a renegade orphaned Harry.
Why say more? This is an enchanting book. The second in the series,
already published (1998) in the U.K., is due in June 1999 from Scholastic
Books (who would have been better advised to get it into print on this
side of the Atlantic more quickly than that; both the Times
and The Philadelphia Inquirer have run articles noting how many
copies of the U.K. edition of the second book are already flooding the
U.S. market). A third is due to be published in the U.K. on July 3rd.
Following my return from Las Vegas,
I read and enjoyed Deke Castleman's Las Vegas (Compass American
Guides, Fodor's, 5th edition, 1997), an informative little book (and
well illustrated, too). Then, on Castleman's recommendation -- he has a
little annotated bibliography -- I picked up Bill Branon's Las Vegas
novel, Devil's Hole (1995; rpt. New York: Harper Paperbacks,
1996). Melodramatic and without redeeming virtues of any other kind,
Branon's novel looks at a gambling house employee who falls in love with
someone who is making far too much money as a gambler to be entirely
honest. Simultaneously, she falls in love with the hit man whom the
casinos have hired to rub out the too-successful gambler.
Well, sure . . . this is plausible. Sort of like pigs with
wings. Doesn't matter, though. The book is readable; it's a lot of fun; I
zipped right through it -- and I have yet to feel even a moment's twinge
for my lapse into bad taste. ("Lapse"?) I'm even
recommending it to you.
Also dreadful -- and, like Devil's Hole, in a way
that makes it enjoyable and easy to recommend -- is Daniel Silva's
The Unlikely Spy (New York: Villard Books, 1996). (It's now
being remaindered as a hardback; and a paperback is available from
Ballantine.) A Nazi agent is placed inside England at the beginning of the
War and left in place (as a "sleeper") until it becomes imperative to
learn about the Allies' invasion plans. An Oxford don spending the War in
M.I.5 is assigned to find and neutralize her; the burden of Silva's book
is to show the process as it works itself out, and in some very surprising
ways. Le Carré Silva ain't; I enjoyed the book anyway.
In The Mark of the Assassin (which I read in a
1999 Ballantine paperback), the granddaughter of the German official who
had placed his agent so successfully into England in Silva's first book
shows up in a sort of supporting role for a one-time Soviet assassin.
After the end of the Cold War, he has become a free-lancer. She teams up
with him to kill a number of people who know too much about how TWA's
flight 800 (Silva calls it something else, of course) was brought down
over Long Island early one evening. The deed, and these follow-up
killings, are the responsibility of a secret cartel that likes to keep
wars going for the sake of their own profits. The Unlikely Spy is
implausible but serious. The Mark of the Assassin is implausible
and not serious at all; and, to the degree that it feeds off paranoia, it
isn't even "responsible" entertainment. I finished it; but I felt it had
run out of gas long before I had. Silva has a sequel in bookstores now.
I'm not running.
I've long read and admired John O'Hara, a writer
who has, now, probably been dead almost long enough to have begun
to slurk back into some form of critical attention, if not exactly
"favor." But by no means have I read all of his work, and so, every so
often, I find myself reading something by him I've never encountered
before. Lovey Childs: A Philadelphian's Story (New York: Random
House, 1969) is my most recent hitherto unknown O'Hara. It's awful.
Lovey is the sort of woman who might be called "universal": her head,
like the universe, is largely a vacuum, with little globules of this and
that scattered at great and irregular intervals throughout it. Much of the
this and almost all of the that concerns her own sexuality (although her
mother's sexuality is also explored, and in stunningly stupid fashion).
The novel treats lesbian sexuality from a standpoint of vast ignorance.
Its characters, representative of a decayed WASP gentility, are far more
"generic" in their depictions than the better-drawn characters of many of
his other works show us O'Hara was bound to produce. The connection he
makes between their lesbian behaviors and their decayed WASPiness and
gentility reduces, what is elsewhere in O'Hara a finely observed sense of
social and societal nuance, to caricature and cliché.
It is as though, in the late 1960s, O'Hara, realizing that all
of the barriers to what could be written about in a book aimed at a broad
public have collapsed, has, in excited consequence, decided to use all of
the new freedoms at his disposal. Alas, he functioned better under the
old-fashioned constraints he had learned and knew how to work with. Here,
his new-found ability to describe some of what Lovey (and her mother) do
becomes, all too quickly, mawkish, embarrassing, irrelevant, and
unbelievable. (Something similar happens to James Jones in the relatively
late Whistle and its stunningly dumb scenes of oral sex.)
If you know and like O'Hara anyway, give this book a try: it is
interesting, and in a great many ways. But don't let it be your first
exposure to him if you've read nothing else. It may succeed all too well
in keeping you from trying him ever again.
One other "Philadelphia" story -- like O'Hara's
Lovey is "a Philadelphia story"? -- I read this month was
the Philadelphia story: i.e., Philip Barry's The Philadelphia
Story. I read the play in States of Grace: Eight Plays by
Philip Barry, ed. Brendan Gill (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
1975), and it was, unlike O'Hara's Lovey, a treat from
beginning to end. (I liked Gill's biographical introduction in this
edition, too.)
If you know the movie, you know the play. Hepburn, who acted in both
and owned the film rights, saw to a fairly faithful adaptation from stage
to screen. Still and all, it's great fun to sit down and read. I
find myself torn by a desire to say much too much about the play and to
leave off with the simple adjuration to read it; all things considered, I
think the latter is the wisest course. It may be much else, but it is
first and foremost fun -- and if reading it convinces you to dust
off the movie and watch it again, well, you can't go wrong with that,
either.
Some time ago, a review I'd bumped into I know not
where led me to order (for what sane bookstore would have stocked?) two
short books by a long-dead Englishman called Lord Berners. A person
otherwise completely unknown to me, he had been a composer and writer of
some (small?) reputation early in the century. (Indeed, I have now seen --
but have yet to acquire -- a CD of his music.) Both books had recently
been reprinted as paperbacks, very prettily and very inexpensively, in
Chappaqua, NY: Turtle Point Press and Helen Marx Books (1998). The
earlier of them, First Childhood, originally appeared in
1934; the second, A Distant Prospect: A Sequel to First
Childhood, in 1945. Both read like reports from a very distant
place. "The past," as L. P. Hartley remarks, "is a different country."
The books are so completely unremarkable that it is difficult to say
why I read them with such pleasure. The first deals with the earliest
memories of Lord Berners. It opens with his sudden realization, some time
around his third year, of his own existence. (Wordsworth, as I recall,
retained memories into adulthood of his second year. That is remarkable,
but I find three impressive enough as feats of this sort go.) The sequel
takes Berners through a schooling that culminates at Eton and seems, on
the whole, to have been about as conventionally unsuccessful as all
schooling stories conventionally are.
I suppose -- although really I cannot remember -- that I read the books
for the Eton connection, which the review must have mentioned. Berners,
born in the early 1880s, antedates by a bit more than twenty years --
almost an entire generation -- Anthony Powell, Cyril Connolly, and Eric
Blair, "old Etonians" born about 1905 whose Eton is much more familiar to
me (through their writings) than the earlier Eton that Berners remembers.
Passionate as I am about Powell, I must have thought that the information
Berners provided would aid my understanding of his milieu, and so, without
expecting to enjoy Berners himself, I got his books as "background" to
Powell. Now, having read both of Berners' volumes, I'm not entirely sure
that they do help me better to understand the world from which
Powell emerged. Since they turn out to have been well worth reading
for their own sake, I have no regrets. (And, I should add, these books
do help me better to understand the worlds which Nick Jenkins
encounters when, after Eton and Oxford, he begins to mix in London not
only with business and affairs but also with art, music, letters, and
"Bohemia.")
The author, terminally eccentric, is someone whose bent is esthetic.
His perceptions are acute, if skewed; his interests are always odd. He
recounts a life to which almost nothing by way of "incident" happens.
Berners' youth takes place entirely within the years of the long peace
with which the nineteenth century saw itself as ending, and which, from
the perspective of the twentieth, looks even more peaceful than it
actually was. His books, as might be expected, are singularly lacking in
"event." Not even a distant rumble from the Boer War is yet to be heard.
Perhaps, in fact, it is the nostalgic sense these books convey of a long
idyll, a pastoral youth interrupted merely by (mildly) georgic Eton, that
gives them their seductive quality: for seductive I found them, as I
whisked briskly and delightedly through them.
I am by no means certain of what "a minor classic" really is -- but the
genre seems to have, if only as sort of thought experiment, a kind of
usefulness. My sense, after having read them, is that these books ask to
be thought of in connection with it. They are "minor"; but they are
also so thoroughly enjoyable that they are worth the modest claim on our
attention they make.
Next, the CD . . .
War stories
continued to claim my attention this month. I reread Chaim Potok's
meditation on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that ended World War II,
set in a post-Armistice war-scarred landscape in South Korea in the
mid-1950s. The Book of Lights (New York: Knopf, 1981;
several paperback reprints exist) is one of Potok's novels that I like a
lot.
Potok's stock-in-trade is the bildungsroman. This one, no
exception, deals with two boys whose education Potok details. One, an
orphaned sad sack, grows up ugly-duckling fashion to become something
quite special, a student of Kabbalah whose philological skills are matched
by an innate sense of the presence of the mystical in everyday life. The
other, a golden-haired child of academic, intellectual, and economic
privilege, is nonetheless surprisingly angst-ridden, perhaps
because his home background is too golden, as well as too . . .
well, goyische. He has assumed an immense burden of guilt from this
environment, and guilt of a quite specific sort. Mom teaches Asian art at
Harvard. Dad, a Big Wig on the Manhattan Project, chums around with folks
like "Uncle Albert," Fermi, Oppie, and President Truman. Mom thus had the
ear of those who make the Big Decisions and so passed the word to Stimson
to take Kyoto off Enola Gay and Bock's Car's lists of possible targets.
The two boys -- "young men," if you prefer -- meet in a Jewish
theological seminary in New York. Their later careers coincide again when
they are assigned as U.S. Army chaplains to troops in South Korea. One
guess which of them needs to take a little trip to Japan, to see
not only Kyoto but also Hiroshima . . .
What can I say? I could criticize the book till the cows come home, and
I love it anyway. Together with The Chosen and My Name
is Asher Lev, I think it among the best of Potok's novels; and,
though I worried about how it might go over with the young, it seems that
students responded warmly to it, too. If you don't already know it, it
might be worth a look-see.
We also read Gustav Hasford's novel about the Vietnam War, The
Short-Timers, a book that was the basis for Stanley Kubrick's
Full-Metal Jacket (which I think betrayed Hasford's book badly).
Hasford's novel is no longer in print (it was originally published in
New York by Harper and Row in 1979); if you're curious, you'll need
to go to a library or search for it. That is unfortunate: I know few books
as remorseless as this in their depiction of the worst that war
experiences involve. Potok's book is reflective. Hasford simply tosses you
into it. Unpleasant, frighteningly so on occasion, it is a book whose
astonishing power redeems the agony it asks its reader to endure. This is
a book that someone should bring back into print.
Last, I read Peter George's Red Alert, by "Peter Bryant" (New
York: Ace, 1958). This is a book that many people know even if they
have never read it. Like Hasford's Short-Timers, it too inspired
Kubrick to travesty. In this case, however, it inspired Kubrick to
inspired travesty: the result was Dr. Strangelove.
Little could be more different than book and movie, although "Bryant's"
actual plot is changed, for Kubrick's version, only very slightly.
The differences lie, obviously enough, in the twist: where "Bryant" gives
his reader the story "straight," that is, seriously, Kubrick takes the
same story, sees its essential madness, and tells it "crazy." Its
craziness reveals more about "Bryant's" subject than the remarkably
earnest "Bryant" himself comes even close to realizing. Yet the novel --
not, I think, especially easy to locate these days -- is worth looking at.
It's not a wonderful fiction, of course. But it is a noticeably
interesting guide, first, to mid-1950s nuclear anxieties, and, second, to
seeing what a toiler does with material, seen here as if in a draft
format, that a master, with almost no changes at all, can vivify. Red
Alert is good potboiler fiction. Strangelove is genius. It's
fun to see genius' source.
Last month, I wrote about my pleasure in a children's
book by J. K. Rowlings, Harry
Potter and the Sorceror's Stone. I also mentioned that her
American publisher has expressed some consternation over the fact that
American fans, objecting to the wait that Scholastic Press has imposed on
them for a book that has been available in the U.K. since last year, have
been importing Rowlings's second book, Harry Potter and the Chamber
of Secrets (London: Bloomsbury, 1998), in droves.
I have now joined their ranks. Unable to wait, I asked a friend who was
hopping the Atlantic to stuff a copy in his bag for me; he did so. I have
two reports.
(1) It's at least as wonderful as the first.
In fact, both a well-turned-out eleven-year-old literary critic of my
acquaintance -- my friend actually stuffed two copies into his bag
for me -- and I concur that it is better than Harry Potter and
the Sorceror's Stone.
I am not going to spoil its plot by saying anything else about it,
other than that, while the first book dealt with Harry's first year at
magic school, this book deals with his second.
(2) Judging from the appearance of this second book in the series,
Rowlings's English publishers publish Harry on the equivalent of
toilet paper. They don't proofread her very well, either. I will
buy Scholastic's volume two as my own copy two (whenever they finally get
around to letting its eager public have access to it) because, if it
resembles their volume one and does not resemble Bloomsbury's
volume two, then I can at least imagine that, as a physical object,
it will outlive me. Since, judging by what I see in the mirror these days,
I am not the book's intended youthful audience and am, in fact, more
ancient-of-days with every passing day, this comment on Bloomsbury's sense
of production values should sound like -- and, in fact, is intended as --
a slur.
Many years ago, I used to watch a geezer named Bill
Miller wheeze his way through novels by P. G. Wodehouse. A
colleague at Penn, and a walking fountain of knowledge about late
Elizabethan literature, he is now dead (and often missed). In life, he sat
in the early mornings reading at a desk in the office where I too worked,
after having opened up the shop for the day. With unpardonable frequency,
he would giggle uncontrollably, then look up, pleased at himself and with
the world, and urge me to read whatever Wodehouse novel he happened to be
wheezing over at the time.
I knew better.
Another colleague -- but he is a cataloger: who can trust them?
-- used to make the same case to me, before, that is, giving up in
despair. Another friend -- quite completely insane, as I have on the good
authority of his wife -- collects Wodehouse. He regularly tells me,
whenever I am in his living room gawking at the colossal display of
Wodehouses-en-case he displays there (with a fine disregard for what it
may lead people to think of him), to stop gawking and read
Wodehouse. More recently still, an English literary scholar whose tastes I
had always thought quite advanced remarked to me, on discovering that I'd
never read Wodehouse, "very important writer, you know . . . ," this in
the sort of plummy tone and accent that would have passed muster with the
most rigorous of Central Casting's staff.
Towards the end of April, another colleague, operating, I suppose, on
the enough-is-enough theory, stuck two of her own copies of his novels
into my hands, urged me to disappear, and to reappear only when I was
ready to return them. They were The Code of the Woosters
(1938) and The Return of Jeeves (1953). The timing was
right; I was nearing the end of a long semester and war, after all -- as
William Tecumseh Sherman once remarked, in a different connection -- is
hell. In addition, her eleven-year-old having recently demonstrated his
acumen as a critic, I supposed it might be possible that she had some of
the same in ready supply, too.
Where have I been? What was I thinking? -- or, more to
the point, not thinking? I've now read, in addition to the two of
her own that my colleague gave me, Carry On, Jeeves (1925),
a collection of Jeeves-Wooster short stories, and Right Ho,
Jeeves (1922), another of the Jeeves-Wooster novels. I've also
read a brief New Yorker profile of Wodehouse by Herbert Warren
Wind, The World of P. G. Wodehouse (New York: Praeger, 1972). I
have three or four more Wodehouses piled up awaiting their turn. And,
mirabile dictu! -- the man wrote ninety or so more.
Five years ago, a book by an author, who ought to be better
known in the United States than I think he is, was translated into English
-- some forty-five years after its first publication in France. Dominic
Di Bernardi took Georges Hyvernaud's Le peau et les os
(1949) and turned it into Skin and Bones (Marlboro, VT:
Marlboro Press, 1994). A short book, French Lieutenant Hyvernaud's
meditations on his experiences as a German prisoner of war between 1940
and 1945, it is astonishingly powerful. Six years are a long time to live
doing nothing, a huge waste of time. Hyvernaud is acute is resisting any
palliatives for the loss, irreparable, of the only asset a person has:
time.
Reading, too, is a pretty good means for killing time. There are guys
who read all day. [You can see why some of this stuff hit home for me.
-- DT] . . . This particular book here, other ones there, what
difference does it make? You don't pick your books any more than you do
your latrine companions. You read just to read. To numb, obliterate, and
lose yourself. To empty yourself of your self. To surrender to the
monotonous spell of signs . . . an interminable black drizzle, a black
ticking of seconds in the emptiness of time. I have long loved Olivier Messiaen's "Quartet for the End of Time,"
composed not after but while Messiaen was a German prisoner of war. It is
because of that circumstance that the work uses the odd assortment of
instruments then at Messiaen's disposal. Reading Hyvernaud alters my view
of the "Quartet." I have usually heard it solely in terms of Messiaen's
spirituality. Hyvernaud makes me rethink it in terms now far more
emphatically reflective of where Messiaen was when he composed it than of
his Catholicism.
Spiritually, Hyvernaud is no Messiaen. Nor, in this book, does he evade
what I assume to be his completely different reading of the implications
of other things he discovers in the course of this experience:
An unpleasant realization, it bears -- unsurprisingly -- a close
similarity to reports from survivors of other kinds of camps. It also
brings in its wake other, only slightly lesser, disillusionments: with,
for instance, the professional academic stance (which Hyvernaud treats in
"Their Beloved Péguy," especially pages 94-96); or with the common
understanding of teachers's relationships to and impacts on their
students, or their impact on the rest of the world ("Our Noble
Profession"). I found these chapters distressing in a great many ways. And
worth recalling.
Hyvernaud's is a bleak vision brilliantly encapsulated in a bleak book.
Flinching from none of the implications of his experience, he makes them
so clear that it is his reader (if anyone) who flinches instead. One does
not often encounter such a vision so lucidly expressed.
So much, in short, for the notion of human dignity.
Many years ago, I read Herschel Baker's 1947 The Image of Man: A
Study of the Idea of Human Dignity in Classical Antiquity, the Middle
Ages, and the Renaissance (rpt. New York: Harper Torchbooks --
gad! remember them? -- 1961), a book that remains well worth
reading. Baker remarks in his conclusion that "after the sixteenth century
the ancient belief in human dignity was subjected to questions so new and
so searching that they have not yet been answered" (p. 335). One wonders
what mountaintop permitted him (in 1947!) quite so Olympian a view of his
question (although that is surely a different question for a different
time). I don't know, now, whether, when I read his book, I'd have had much
sense either of what Baker meant or what, I now suspect, he did not
mean. Surely, then, I'd not have quibbled -- as, in a nitpicking mood, I
would quibble now -- with his "after the sixteenth century." No
matter: any conceivable sense of the concept of "human dignity" that Baker
illuminates has altered irremediably in the modern era. How it has changed
is something Hyvernaud witnesses with appalling clarity. His book also
shows us much more than we may want to know about why this
deterioration has occurred.
A differently-derived view of this deterioration of
the sense of human dignity in our times, although it was not
published until 1998, was originally written in 1937, before
Americans became involved in the Second World War (from which Hyvernaud's
book emerged). Its author was an American playwright known primarily for
rather different sorts of works, Tennessee Williams, and the play
was his Not About Nightingales, ed. Allean Hale (New York: New
Directions, 1998) -- a $12.95 paperback and worth every cent of it.
I read the play because I was going to see it performed (directed by
Trevor Nunn, it's at Circle in the Square in New York City). It premiered
in England in 1997 and, this year, is receiving its first American
production, sixty-one years after Williams wrote it, by essentially the
same company that performed it in England. The incident on which Williams
based his Depression-era venture into radical social realism took place at
Philadelphia's Holmesburg Prison. There several prisoners were scalded to
death as punishment for their refusal to eat what they were given.
Most people like me tend to be somewhat insulated from America's prison
system. Incidents such as the one at Holmesburg tend still to shock them.
I am not quite so insulated as "most people like me," however. I am
the nephew of people who were guests of the state at the federal
penitentiaries at Atlanta (he) and at Lewisburg (she). Discussion of his
"before-" and "after-" prison physical condition remains, for those who
care about such matters, a leading indicator of how American prisoners --
political prisoners -- are treated. As an adult, I was thus
reminded that something is wrong with our prison system by the
Attica revolt, but it was not "new" knowledge that Attica produced for me.
(I might also recommend in passing, for those to whom all of this prison
stuff is terra incognita, the amazing learning experience that
awaits you in the somewhat grim prison novel of Mitchell Smith,
Stone City [New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990]. My vague
recollection is that its author himself served a long sentence in a Maine
penitentiary. Whether that recollection is true or false, the book is not
some sort of "freakish" accident produced by a "freak" author: it is a
finely-crafted, well-written novel by someone who knows throughout exactly
what he is doing and where is taking you at every single moment. It's a
long book, and an unpleasant; I also thought it a little too
"calculated [especially in its climax] for my tastes. On the other hand, I
read the book when it was new and I remember that climax with
appalling clarity; and the book itself is so striking as to make its
difficulties, if that's really what they are, worthwhile.)
All that said -- and the digression over -- Williams' play is shocking.
I cannot recommend it strongly enough to do justice to its merits. Its
view of its subject is clear-eyed and, one feels certain, deadly accurate.
What it may do to your view of Williams is another matter, however.
For me, Williams is a long-time dramatic hero. Like William Inge, he is a
playwright whose works I have been seeing, reading, and admiring since I
was so young that to tell me, now, that they might have problems seems
simply beside the point. And fundamentally unbelievable, too. On the other
hand, he is a playwright I admire for certain kinds of plays. This
happens not to be of that kind. And yet it is admirable -- much
more than merely "admirable," in fact -- anyway.
Not About Nightingales proves to be a revelation about its
author as well as a superb play about a topic that remains vital today. As
vital, in fact, as when Williams set it down. (I write while the Louima
trial is under way in New York, where, today, as always, "it's Giuliani
time." And don't tell me he fabricated the quote: even if it's a
fable, it's of the kind that contains truth.) I urge you to give it a try
as a text even if you cannot see it in New York before it closes.
I also read Williams's Orpheus Descending
-- this, too, because I was going to see the play. (It was produced in
Philadelphia at The Wilma Theater in May and June.) Unlike
Nightingales, Orpheus takes place in the old familiar
Williams country I know and love. There's a Big Daddy-like character dying
of cancer (I saw Burl Ives as I read). Anna Magnani also appears (indeed
Anna Magnani played the role of Lady in the movie version, The Fugitive
Kind). I am afraid I see Valentine, the mysterious life-giving
stranger who turns up on a scene where otherwise death has dominion, as
trashy ol' Elvis Presley; in actuality, however, elegant Marlon Brando
played the role (in the movie). These few characterological points alone
are probably enough to make you see that lots of things happen in this
play. Many of them are erotic, all of them are exciting, some of them are
unpleasant, and they all usually produce mixed results. There may be few
big winners, but there are lots of big losers.
The reviewer for the Philadelphia Inquirer
found the Wilma production filled with Christ allusions (in an
Orpheus play? -- get outta here!). He had many other
objections, as well, leading me to suspect -- at my most charitable --
that perhaps Williams is not his cup of tea. That doesn't exactly
impress me in a would-be theater reviewer, but . . . well, you
can't have everything, I guess.
I found the play filled with exactly everything I like about Williams.
The production was, like the text, an equally potent reminder of his
strengths. Since it's been at least since the '50s that I've had
occasion to see or read this play, it was fun for me to find that it all
still works. I loved my encounter with the hitherto unknown
Nightingales and the surprises it offered me. But Orpheus is
an old dear. I loved it, too; and so might you.
I also read and saw Margaret Edson's Pulitzer
Prize-winning play, Wit (New York: Faber, 1999). I thought
it was a powerful enough play merely to read. Not surprisingly, it is even
more powerful on stage, particularly when it is as beautifully performed
as it is by Kathleen Chalfant in the central role of the dying Donne
specialist Professor Vivian Bearing. Bearing's effort to make sense of her
life, as it comes unpleasantly to its end, is more compelling than I'd
have thought possible. On the whole, Edson's treatment of this death is
neither maudlin nor uplifting. She strikes a reasonably tolerable balance
in her handling of materials that could all too easily have led her in
either direction.
Many other things about this play could be said (among them that, if
you have a chance to see it, it is a chance to seize). One of the most
remarkable things about it, for me, is the way in which Edson makes Donne
a vital part of the action. I have thought for a long time that, as Eliot
receded into insignificance (which I say without intending to imply that I
think he either should or shouldn't be doing so), he would take Donne down
with him. Edson's ability to re-imagine Donne as a poet capable of
speaking to a post-Eliot audience makes me wonder whether Donne might not,
finally, outlast Eliot and stick around for a while. I hope he does. I'm
supposed to be teaching his poetry this coming fall. If I do, I will add
Edson's play to the reading for this course: she offers some ways to think
about Donne that I hope people will find interesting and provocative.
So, of course, is everything else about this play. Sitting down to read
it may not sound like a day at the beach. It isn't. It's still an
experience well worth having.
Another play that I recommend with immense pleasure
-- I read it this month, but haven't seen it -- is Timberlake
Wertenbaker's After Darwin (London: Faber, 1998). Wertenbaker's
play is difficult to paraphrase or summarize. She looks at the conflicts
between the intellectually adventurous Darwin and religiously conservative
FitzRoy about what Darwin's natural history observations led him to while
the naturalist was aboard Fitzroy's Beagle. She also looks at the
difficulties faced by two English actors, an Eastern European refugee
director, and an African-American playwright in staging the latter's play
based on these conflicts. Ideas about evolution are in play; so, too,
ideas about genetics, freedom, responsibility, human interrelationships,
language . . .
This may all sound like very heady stuff; it is. It's also a great deal
of fun and brilliantly handled. The play seems to have been performed in
London last June (1998); I don't know whether it has been, or ever will
be, produced in the United States. If reading it is as close as you're
likely to get, then reading it is what you should be doing. This is
exciting theater.
The recent opportunity to see a wonderfully funny (and
quite explicitly homoerotic) production of Noel Coward's Design for
Living at Princeton's McCarter Theater sent me back to Alan
Sinfield's extremely smart essay on Coward, "Public Lives / Private
Theater: Noel Coward and the Politics of Homosexual Representation"
(Representations, no. 36 [Fall 1991], pp. 43-63). In this now
no longer new essay, Sinfield writes about how Coward managed both to
speak and, simultaneously, not to speak about homosexuality in his
plays, about the linguistic and social codes that permitted him to do both
things at once, and about why he might have wanted to do both things at
once. Not only smart but also supple and suggestive and, as is typical of
its author, very well written, as well, the article is interesting and a
great deal of fun.
Sinfield illuminated for me, in a flash, why two of the reactions I got
to Princeton's production of Design for Living were, in sharp
contrast to my own, violently negative. One I overheard as the speaker
descended, un-Duchamplike, a staircase from the theater balcony. (In my
mind's eye, she comes rather from the land of Helen Hokinson than that of
Marcel Duchamp.) Loudly, she bemoaned the presence onstage of themes that,
in her day, would never have been permitted. Well, yes. I simply chalked
her up as yet one more representative of a species of Princeton audiences
whom I have adored deeply ever since, years ago, I experienced them
walking out in droves for the first fifteen minutes while Hume Cronyn and
Jessica Tandy performed Samuel Beckett's twenty-minute Not I.
Witless, they thus ruined the experience for anyone who happened to want
to see that odd play. On this occasion, one swallow did not a spring make.
But I was surprised into thinking it might at least be almost spring when,
a few days later, I encountered an equally outraged response to the
production from the reviewer in The Philadelphia Inquirer. (To be
sure, he is the same fellow bemused by Christ allusions in Tennessee Williams's Orpheus
play.) In his review, his anger over the gaying of Design for
Living reduced him -- or might it in fact have raised him? -- to
nearly apoplectic inarticulateness.
Sinfield usefully reminded me of how threatening explicit homosexual
themes may seem to audiences prepared to accept them only if they are not
required to "attend" to them. This production made that a
requirement; it obviously rubbed some people the wrong way as a result.
As a partaker of a different minority perspective from Sinfield's, by
the way, I have to add one small carp about his essay. At least in part, I
was amused by Sinfield's apparent indifference to, or ignorance of, one of
the reasons why the play's Ernest Friedman is depicted so unpleasantly.
Friedman is the art dealer who marries the young woman who has lived
(serially) with both artists. In the wake of her defection, they wind up
as kind of odd couple. Her marriage with Friedman, however, yokes together
a young woman who seeks certain kinds of amenities without corresponding
responsibilities and a man who, not only not a culture-producer
(like the two artists), is rather a cultural parasite (a dealer)
and, worse, a closeted homosexual. Sinfield, quite rightly but without any
obvious self-consciousness, shows how Coward associates Ernest with every
cliché normally associated with cultural parasitism. Every
cliché, that is, except "kike." Has Sinfield really
not noticed that Friedman is both a homophobic and an
antisemitic stereotype?
Still, that's a pretty small carp about an otherwise fine essay.
One other lovely magazine piece I read this month --
and it would have been equally fine any month! -- was Anthony
Grafton's "Arendt and Eichmann at the Dinner Table". It appeared in
The American Scholar, 68:1 (Winter 1999), 105-119. Grafton
writes in the wake of the death of his father, a journalist named Samuel
Grafton (and a Philadelphia who attended Central High School and Penn).
His essay recounts some correspondence concerning an article, never
published, that his father wrote about the controversy over Arendt's 1962
New Yorker articles, and 1963 book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A
Report on the Banality of Evil. More than this, however, it is also an
homage to and defense of his father, a consideration of what has happened
in the years since 1963 to journalistic (popular) treatment of
intellectual issues, and a rumination on growing up in a particular time
and intellectual milieu. I found it moving and thoughtful on all counts.
The Yale Review (87:2 [April 1999], 1-12)
published John Keegan's essay, apparently from the opening of his
new book, The First World War (New York: Knopf, 1999), "European
Tragedy, European Mystery." It's quite nicely written and evocative,
without necessarily adding anything to what one had already known about
the War that got our now-fading century off to its fine beginning.
I picked up Mary F. Corey's The World Through a
Monocle: The New Yorker at Midcentury (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1999) with high heart and great
expectations: at last, a book that looked at The New Yorker from a
learned rather than a gossipy perspective. I finished it with real dismay.
Corey has taken a terrific topic and reduced it to a conventional
historian's framework that seems so constipated, predictable, and
formulaic that one wonders what happened in its execution to the bright
idea her imagination had when she lit upon the topic in the first place.
In addition, her scholarship is careless.
The book has been hurried into production; the author has not proofread
herself. She refers at one later point in the volume to the two cover
illustrations her preface discusses (p. 232, n. 12); but that preface,
obviously cut, now discusses only one cover. She uncritically repeats
clichés (e.g., Katherine White and E. B. White as "the conscience
of The New Yorker" [p. 23]). Somewhat startlingly -- one had
thought historians checked things like this -- she dates erection of the
Berlin Wall to the 1940s (p. 62). She finds it impossible to imagine
The Saturday Evening Post, among other mass-market periodicals,
"publishing humorous articles about household help, largely because most
of their readers did not employ domestic workers" (p. 128). That comment
suggests a failure even to look at the Post, a regular
weekly feature of which was Ted Key's cartoon "Hazel," a household
domestic worker. (Okay, a cartoon is not an "article." Still and all,
what, according to Corey's theory, is such a cartoon doing there at all?
-- and on a weekly basis at that?) I'm also dubious about the statistics
undergirding Corey's assumption that "most" of the readers of such
periodicals didn't employ domestic workers. One tends, perhaps willfully,
to forget that domestic work was once upon a time something even the
middle classes could afford, and (remembering my own middle-class,
leftish, and union neighborhood) did.
More troublesome still, Corey doesn't seem to know the literary
milieu within which The New Yorker functioned; and she is an
unimaginative reader. Two examples of her uncertain handling of literary
milieu: Two examples of unimaginative reading: Most troublesome, for me, is the form to which Corey has subscribed: a
neat little thesis is stated, exemplary evidence fills out the chapter,
and then the thesis is restated. Next chapter: do it again with a new
little thesis. As excitement goes, the form rarely permits its user to
attain even to the level of the mildly tepid. Since Corey's theses tend to
be tiny and cautious anyway, excitement is forever forfeit. The child, she
tells us, of people who were blacklisted in the 1950s, she seems so
fearful of ever being hauled before a kangaroo court herself that she has,
despite imagining herself into a magnificent topic, failed to do it
justice. I'm glad (grudgingly) I read it; but, on the whole, this book is
a lost opportunity.
In 1987, Princeton University Press published
Alvin B. Kernan's Printing Technology, Letters, and Samuel
Johnson, a book that seems to me almost a marvel in its kind. It
deals with the transformation of the literary universe wrought by printing
as, some three centuries after its introduction to Europe, writers
(epitomized here by Johnson) finally learned how to make it work for them.
It's a book I've used with great pleasure when I teach classes in the
history of books and printing: smart, readable, and exciting. (Of how many
academic books can that last word legitimately be used?) It's a book I'll
happily use again.
Some years later, Kernan wrote a memoir of his experiences in the
United States Navy during World War II. Crossing the Line: A
Bluejacket's World War II Odyssey (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press,
1994) is another beautiful book, one from which I quote, in my own
most recent publication, most of its closing passage.
It is, in fact, rather a sad passage. It suggests that, for the person
it ostensibly concerns, one of Kernan's ancestors who fought at
Gettysburg, nothing in his life after that experience could have matched
it. Perhaps because of its position at the conclusion of a recounting of
Kernan's own war experiences, the passage seems to imply that, for him,
too, the same feeling of anticlimax may characterize the way he thinks
about his own life since the War.
The bulk of Kernan's scholarly work has been in fields that concern
Renaissance English literature. I know well someone who was his teaching
assistant at Yale in the mid-1960s, so he is someone I've met occasionally
in person as well as, and much more frequently, through his work. Viewed
from the outside, his postwar life doesn't look particularly
anticlimactic; it looks, in fact, pretty distinguished. Yet he's already
written one very grumpy book about what has happened to literary studies
in the years since he entered the field in the 1940s, The Death of
Literature (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992. That book
seemed to me to lay most of the blame for what Kernan sees as the death of
the field at the door of his own students. When I first read it, I thought
he must have forgotten how similarly his own professors must have thought
about what his brand of New Criticism was doing to the kinds of literary
study they practiced and taught.
Now Kernan has written a second volume of memoirs, In Plato's
Cave (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999). Another sad and
grumpy book, it suggests that I was wrong in that last guess: if many of
Kernan's instructors were, in fact, New Critics whom he did not
disappoint, others, whose approaches to literary study were "historical,"
he is aware of disappointing mightily. If there's a lesson in the
Janus-like nature of such intergenerational conflict -- a lesson,
incidentally, that concerns Walter Jackson Bate and, more prominently,
Harold Bloom, once a contemporary and a colleague at Yale -- Kernan seems
not to have learned it. Here he is found still berating his own most
academically famous pupil, Stephen Jay Greenblatt, as he had done, naming
no names, in the earlier polemic on literature's Death. It seems
not only a tasteless but also a pointless exercise -- sort of like hearing
Frederick Pottle wonder if Maynard Mack had really published enough
to warrant tenure at Yale. "Enough"? What might Pottle have meant? and why
should anyone have even asked the question?
In short, In Plato's Cave is a book whose tone and point of view
are very difficult to agree with. Angry and bitter, it is, in the literal
sense of this over-used word, reactionary. It uses words like
"postmodernism," "relativism," "radical," and "political," as so many
sticks with which to beat over the head those with whose views Kernan
disagrees. It finds its friends in people like Gertrude Himmelfarb -- as
if she were, in her own scholarly work, somehow not "political." It
even makes a number of obvious errors, which Kernan's point about
scholarship's decay, or change, should have made him anxious to avoid. On
the microscopic level, he misquotes the epigraph from Kingsley Amis's
Lucky Jim (p. 86). A bit more significantly, he gets important
elements of chronology wrong when he discusses the tenure decisions that
retained Thomas Greene, Richard Sylvester, and himself at Yale, while
sending Harry Berger off to the University of California at Santa Cruz
(pp. 135-136). He elides important issues about himself in his department.
His relationship, for example, with Mack, to whose influence ("my model")
he alludes late in the book (p. 286), is badly under-discussed. Perhaps as
importantly, he never speaks about what it was like for him to teach, as a
combat veteran, in a department at least two of whose leading lights --
Mack and Dwight Culler -- had spent the War as conscientious objectors.
Kernan's exposition of a somewhat embarrassing sexual episode (pp. 7-8)
seems to permit, if not actually to ask for, interpretation as if it were
saying that student-teacher sexual relationships are quite all right.
Reversing the "ordinary" terms by presenting a predatory female instructor
and a first-year male student, he gives the issue a different resonance
than his reader may expect. Since the exemplary first-year male student is
the now twenty-five year-old war veteran Alvin Kernan, however, the tale
doesn't quite work the way Kernan may want it to. Moreover, his age and
experience do not alter the fundamental power disparities this
relationship juxtaposes. His comments about Jews in the academy, and at
Yale specifically (p. 87), are both brief and specious; they show no
awareness of Suzanne Klingenstein's work on this very topic. His attitudes
towards women and African-Americans, to say nothing of other "newcomers"
to the academic scene, seem half-hearted at best, unwelcoming at worst
(passim).
I could pile up additional problems without difficulty. The truth is,
however annoying, they don't finally matter much, at least as far as I am
concerned. This is one of those books with which I disagree on just about
every page. I found it worth reading from beginning to end anyway. I know
a little bit about the Yale (and almost nothing about the Princeton) of
which Kernan writes. I know a little bit about the course of literary
studies during the period about which he writes. Kernan sees these matters
from different perspectives from mine; his regrets and disaffections are
very far from those that upset me. That does not change my interest in his
point of view, whether it is agreeable to me or not; my wholehearted
admiration for certain parts of the book (e.g., chapter 12, which I can
envisage using in a class on the history of books and printing); or the
warmth I feel for anyone who takes books and reading as seriously as
Kernan does. It ain't perfect? It isn't even always right? So what. I
learned from it anyway -- even, now and again, from my disagreements with
it. It's a book about things that are important to me. That turns out to
have been a very good reason to read it, and to enjoy it.
Another memoir I read this past month is Michael
Pearson's Dreaming of Columbus: A Boyhood in the Bronx (Syracuse,
NY: Syracuse University Press, 1999). The book seems to end with a
return visit to the author's old Bronx haunts in 1995, which makes me
suspect that it took Pearson a while to find a publisher for it. I can't
understand why, if I'm right, that might have been the case. This book is
so gorgeous that I can imagine no one having a second thought about
getting it into print. It appears, appropriately enough, in Syracuse's New
York City History and Culture Series but, as a hardcover university press
imprint, I fear it will have difficulty finding its audience (I bumped
into it by sheer accident and I am its audience). It needs a
paperback edition; and it deserves one, too.
Pearson's Bronx is a matter of mere blocks from mine. His was, however,
an entirely different world from the one I grew up in (and not only
because he is seven years younger than I). The closest we could ever have
come to one another was when, between elementary and high school, I spent
two years at J.H.S. 80 on Mosholu Parkway, a little bit north of his
neighborhood. We also seem to have known the same movie theaters, places
like the RKO Fordham and the Ascot. Maybe he used the Bedford Park branch
of The New York Public Library; he mentions taking books out of the
library but doesn't say which branch he used. If so, then he was using one
of my own regular branches, a long walk (or a short bike ride) from my
apartment and much better than my neighborhood (Van Cortlandt) branch, if
not so good as the Fordham (central Bronx) branch.
But he went to elementary school at St. Philip Neri, located at my IND
subway stop at Bedford Park Boulevard on the Grand Concourse. Whatever
else it may be, that is not the universe of P.S. 95 ("By the manor of Van
Cortlandt") where I went to school, even though my principal, Mary B.
Flynn, had she donned a habit, could have doubled as his (if St. Philip
had female administrators in those days). I knew the school, of course,
from its face on the Concourse. A mysterious place, it was not one into
which I ever set foot. On the other hand, the Church of St. Philip Neri,
right next door, was, as it happens, the first Christian church I ever
entered for a service: as a tourist on a Boy Scout-arranged tour. In fact,
I'd gotten it all wrong. We were actually supposed to be attending a
Protestant church about two blocks east of Bedford Park, but I didn't yet
know that there were differences between Catholics and Protestants and,
thus, many churches rather than just the one in the neighborhood to
which my troop was detailed for its visit. Other than the Church of the
Visitation -- "my own" parish church -- St. Philip Neri was the only
uptown church I knew. (There was a chapel at St. Patrick's Home for the
Aged, up the street from me, but I knew that a chapel wasn't a church even
though I didn't know what it was.) The congregants were very sweet. I
remember being so frightened that I found that surprising. They directed
me to the right church. Both places looked to me a lot like nothing I'd
ever seen before: I remember them both today, probably incorrectly, as
paneled in gobs of dark wood and badly lit.
Pearson went on to high school at Mount St. Michael, a place I never
knew about at all, and attended college at Fordham, where I set foot only
once that I can remember (to attend a lecture for junior high school
students about polarized light: why?). Just blocks away from his
neighborhood, I might as well have been, as I say, on a different planet.
His book shows me how different it was. It shows me also how much of it
was not different at all from what I knew. It can be read for
"information" about "ethnically other" lives, or growing up Catholic in
New York, or what the late fifties and early sixties were like to be
young. (In this respect, a particular strength of Pearson's book is his
evocation of the impact of the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war, and
of the civil rights movement, on himself and his friends.) But its
information content doesn't seem to me an especially good reason to read
this wonderful book.
Pearson has written a book about "New York City's history and culture."
But it's also a meditation on time, place, and home. These qualities,
which I cannot reduce to short quotations, are what make this book so
remarkable. I got it for what I'd learn about a part of my own
neighborhood I didn't know enough about while I was still there. I plowed
through it because it reminded me that I still am.
Last month, I wrote about two volumes of memoirs
written by Lord
Berners. I read another of his books this month, thinking, when I
ran across it, that Far From the Madding War (1941; rpt. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1983 -- an edition with a good introduction
by Sir Harold Acton) might be a memoir of interest with respect to the
course on war literature I have been teaching. It is about the War, all
right. But it isn't a memoir, it's a novel. It's also as weird as all
getout, and astonishingly funny.
A "home front" tale, Lord Berners's book begins with young Emmeline,
the daughter of the Warden of All Saints College, Oxford, thinking about
what war work she will embark on. She is rather picky about it. It mustn't
involve her too much with other people, it mustn't be too taxing, it must
nonetheless involve her in some sort of sacrifice, and so on. The work she
eventually decides upon involves a medieval tapestry she has been
bequeathed. This Emmeline decides to destroy thread by thread. (Just, say,
burning it up wouldn't be work.)
The decision to choose this form of war work; the logic by which
Emmeline reaches it; the attitudes towards Oxford, the War, and Emmeline
herself of the people who surround her (some of whom engage in what
readers will agree is "war work" as that term is usually
understood): all this Berners lays out in a tone so ordinary as to make
this, finally, as subversive a book as I have read in a very long time.
For anyone who thinks Eric Blair or Evelyn Waugh is the last word in
twentieth-century English satire, or Joseph Heller in transmogrification
of attitudes towards the nobility of the good war, this book is a
necessary read.
At a used bookstore in northern Maine, I found a copy
of Mary E. Wilkins Freeman's Doc. Gordon (New York: Authors and
Newspapers Association, 1906). In this fairly melodramatic effort set
in rural New Jersey, Freeman writes about a young physician who moves to a
tiny town to get experience prior to setting up his practice in a big
city. The physician he understudies turns out to have many dark secrets.
Every single one is a secret the reader will know before the novel is
over. He also has a young woman living with him. No reader can be imagined
so dense as not to know what is going to happen to her and the young
doctor as soon as she appears on the novel's stage.
If suspense is what you like in a book, then, Doc. Gordon won't
be your cup of tea. In many respects, it isn't a very good novel even if
suspense is not what you demand of a novel; yet I read it the same
day I picked it up -- and am far from sorry I did so. In the first place,
I've read a number of other novels about physicians from roughly this same
period, including books by William Dean Howells, Sarah Orne Jewett, and
Elizabeth Stuart Phelps. It's nice to have yet one more in this kind; they
are surprisingly interesting reading. In the second place, Freeman's book
deals with an issue -- euthanasia for the terminally ill and suffering --
that Dr. Kevorkian's arrest, conviction, and sentence have not yet gotten
off the public agenda. It offers a good view of how charged the issue has
long been (as does Williams's
Orpheus Descending, incidentally, as well) for those who need
to consider it close up.
In the third place, Doc. Gordon prompted me to pick up another one
of Freeman's novels, this one Pembroke (1894; rpt. Chicago:
Academy Press, 1978). This book, twelve years older than Doc.
Gordon, is set in Freeman's native New England. Its characters seem to
have been carved from the granite of that region; and they are just about
as flexible. A quarrel begins in chapter one. A decade rolls by, lives
end, loves are thwarted, before any resolution can be hoped for. All of
this may sound as if Freeman is going to treat her incidents here as
melodramatically as she treats certain events in Doc. Gordon. She
does not do so. There is a potential for melodrama, to be sure, but on the
whole the story and its characters carry their own appropriate emotional
weight.
In fact, Pembroke is a breathtakingly magnificent book. It has
flaws. The end, for instance, strikes me as a bit -- a bit! -- too
easy, too pat, too anticlimactic, for all that has preceded it. One knows
why she felt she needed to do it this way: a different end might have been
less satisfying for a reader, less commercially successful, despite
(possibly) being truer to her materials. But its strengths are much more
impressive than its flaws: the book's people, locked into their lives and
their complicated interrelationships, are portrayed both brilliantly and
affectionately, and the reader comes to feel something for even the worst
of them.
Only the very richest of literary traditions could manage to forget
such a book. We must be very rich.
I wrote last month about discovering P.
G. Wodehouse My reading of Wodehouse has continued this month. I
have managed to get through The Inimitable Jeeves (1924),
Thank You, Jeeves (1934), and Stiff Upper Lip, Jeeves
(1963). They're not all equally good. But so far none has been a
bummer, either. In fact, I notice that I seem to keep laughing aloud while
reading them. And there are still lots to go for this late
discoverer . . .
For reasons too complicated to explain, I received
uncorrected proofs of a book by Edward W. Said, Out of Place: A
Memoir (New York: Knopf, 1999), which is scheduled to appear in
late September (for about $27.00). I sat down and read it instantly. After
doing so, I can only urge you to grab it when it finally gets into
bookstores. It is a book to be read with avidity as well as admiration.
Academic autobiographies have lately come to seem something of a
cottage industry. Cathy Davidson, Alvin
Kernan, Frank Lentricchia, and Marianna Torgovnick are a few of the
many professors -- many of them, like these four, literature
professors -- who have written in this genre in recent times. Said's book,
also written by a literature professor, looks as though it belongs in the
same category. As it happens, however, Out of Place is not
"an academic autobiography"; it merely looks like one. Appearances
are deceiving.
In part, this book is a political intellectual's intellectual
autobiography. More importantly, Out of Place is an elegy and a
lament for a lost time and place: Palestine, Egypt, Lebanon, before the
1948 creation of Israel and the subsequent Palestinian diaspora. It is a
meditation, and by no means an uncomplicated one, on parents and their
relationships with their children: what they do for, as well as
what they do to, their children; and the reasons, to the extent
that these can be re-imagined, that they do the things they do.
Reciprocally, it is also a book about children and their relationships
with their parents (and -- Said has four sisters -- with one another). It
is a book about mortality, about the fragility of memory, and about the
complexity of things. It is a book, finally, about exile, perhaps the
oldest of Christian -- perhaps the oldest of human -- literary
themes. Written by an author who for most of this decade has suffered
from, and been treated for, an incurable form of leukemia, and who
presents himself as under a sentence of death, this book offers personal
as well as national reasons for thinking very seriously about "exile" in
all its many forms.
Thoughtfulness characterizes Out of Place. So does anger. Its
anger is multi-directional; Said has a lot to be angry about. Most of all,
he is angered by the marginalization, disruption, and dispersal of those
peoples -- Arabs, Druse, Palestinians, Christians, Moslems: Levanters all
-- whom Europe and America elected to pay the price for the Holocaust, not
something they had perpetrated. Evicted and swiftly dispersed in the name
of providing Europe's surviving Jews with a national homeland (some two
millenia after it had been "theirs"), their lives and livelihoods
disprupted, they were removed from the scene in part to give Europe and
America a place where, if they were lucky, their own generally unwanted
Jews might also go. Said's rage at this thoughtless shattering of the
world of his youth -- a world that, it might be suspected, he may recall
just a wee bit too lovingly -- underlies everything in this book.
Suffering, he reminds us, is not the purview of post-Holocaust
Jewry alone.
His politics, in short, will not appeal to everyone. That granted,
Said's thoughts about what has happened to Palestinians, and to the Middle
East in general, need to be considered very carefully by those who care
about Israel and its neighbors in the 1990s. In the wake of the wreckage
recently left by Cheltenham (PA) High School's gift to western
civilization (Binjamin Netanyahu), I am sympathetic to much of what Said
argues. Nonetheless, seeing Zionists and Israelis as working hand in glove
with Britain and America to create a Jewish state on the ashes of a
Palestinian homeland, Said fails to see how his Zionist and Israeli
antagonists have, in this exercise, themselves been marginalized, right
alongside his Palestinian protagonists. The powerless clients and fawning
apes of the great, regarding Arabs as "wogs" or "niggers" (depending on
whether their cultural cues come from London or Washington), they have
once again become their homelands' butt-ends. Long ago moneylenders and
shylocks, now colonialists and masters, they remain -- either way --
agents, and despised agents at that. Both the newly-diasporized and the
newly-reinstalled look, to my eye, equally victimized by a very old
colonialist's game, "Let's you and him fight."
Culturally, Out of Place is curiously old-fashioned, or so it
seems, at least, to my taste. Its references to literature, like its
references to music (as important as literature for the growth of the mind
the book relates), are judgmental and hierarchical. For example, a very
fast reference to his taste for "Chaminade" -- you either know who she was
or you don't; Said never explains the reference and it never recurs --
serves, finally, to characterize as irremediably lowbrow someone whom Said
is describing. Well, please! Mozart and Brahms are also used as "cultural
markers" in ways that seem, at any rate seem to me, to miss the point. (To
my mild surprise, I was more often disturbed by this aspect of Out of
Place than I was by the author's objections to Israel and to western
interference in the Middle East.) Yet his love for what he thinks about --
in music almost always, in literature occasionally -- comes through Said's
prose, obscured though that love may often be by the author's far too
faithfully recalled youthful, and perhaps not only "youthful," cultural
arrogance. Any child who can get as excited as Said remembers himself
getting when Clemens Krauss and the Vienna Philharmonic or Wilhelm
Furtwängler and the Berlin Philharmonic show up "to play Cairo" has
got to be, in some really fundamental way, all right!
Most readers may find even less to like in Said's geopolitics or his
cultural politics than I did. It doesn't matter. Powerfully
thoughtful, frequently beautiful, and richly observent of its world and of
the growth of the mind through which that world is experienced and
rendered, Out of Place is a wonderful book, all the better for
not going down easily. Get in line now. This is not only a gorgeous
book, it is also an important one. It will repay all your attention -- and
then some.
I wandered into David Mamet's film
version of Terence Rattigan's The Winslow Boy with few expectations
one way or the other. When I realized they were in it, I had, to be sure,
predispositions in favor of Nigel Hawthorne (Arthur Winslow) and Jeremy
Northam (Sir Robert Morton). Another somewhat less favorable
predisposition, concerning Rebecca Pidgeon (Catherine Winslow), provided
an undercurrent of discontent. Otherwise, I had no idea of what to look
forward to (which includes my expectations with regard to Gemma Jones,
who, as it turns out, did a lovely job as Grace Winslow, and Guy Edwards,
who was quite fine in the role of Ronnie, "the Winslow boy"). Well-made
plays don't come my way all that frequently. Moreover, the last -- and I
think only -- experience I've ever had with a Rattigan play was when I saw
Eric Portman and Margaret Leighton in the New York version of the London
production of Separate Tables at The Music Box on January 5, 1957.
(I can hardly believe it myself. Oh, well. Time flies when you're having
fun.)
I was surprised by the movie. I found it rather moving and also
beautifully performed -- even by Ms. Pidgeon, not usually one of my faves,
especially since I saw her in the theater, not too long ago, mucking up
badly in Mamet's mucked-up play The Old Neighborhood. The movie was
even, melodramatically (or ideologically) speaking, quite interesting. If
the question of any need to redress societal wrongs turns, as Rattigan and
Mamet make it turn in both the play and the play-turned-movie, on wrongs
inflicted on the upper middle classes, then certainly that question
becomes an easy one to answer: us? The bastards have wronged
us? Well! -- One wonders what a decision to give the Winslows a
different social location might have done to the play . . . but then, of
course, neither Rattigan nor Mamet would have chosen to write/rewrite it,
would they?
The movie sent me back to read Terence Rattigan's The Winslow
Boy (1946). I found it in volume I of his now long out-of-print
Collected Plays (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1953), and it's quite a
bit of fun. Rattigan's depiction of a turn-of-the-century family, replete
with suffragette daughter and her utterly stifling young love -- no
audience can fail to be relieved when, at play's end, she is out of
that relationship! -- is utterly fascinating. So too is the neocon
Mamet's witless extension of the play -- intellectually witless,
that is, but, dramatically, flawless and seamless -- which takes
the very barest of hints and possibilities in Rattigan's play and turns
them into a relationship between Catherine and Sir Robert Morton that
will, by absorbing Catherine into the happy folds of masculine protection,
save her from the ravages of feminism, suffragism, and male-less
unhappiness and loneliness.
I suppose the author of drivel such as Oleanna (1992) might
actually believe this claptrap. Conservative though he may also have been,
Rattigan needed no such intrusive explicitness at the end of his much
cooler play. That said, Mamet's revision works -- and it works
brilliantly. I'm sorry I never saw The Winslow Boy on stage (my
memories of 1946 are not good, but I'm fairly sure that I did not).
Mamet's film is not quite the same thing as Rattigan's play, not by a long
shot; but it is wonderful to watch, even if all one can do, other than
admire it, is gnash one's teeth at the effectiveness with which Mamet
embodies his attitudes as he engrafts them onto Rattigan's original.
It's a well-made film after a well-made play; remorsefully, I recommend
both.
I also went back to Separate Tables, which appears in the
1964 volume III of Rattigan's Collected Plays (also out-of-print).
I don't think I've ever read it previously, nor have I seen it since 1957.
I simply cannot at that time have had a clue what it was about -- or,
rather, what its two parts were about; for its two acts are two separate
plays, linked by a large number of the same characters but with two
different principals in each, who don't appear in the other (though the
actors -- Portman and Leighton in the production I saw -- stay the same).
The first deals with the return of a long-divorced wife, now going
through a second divorce, into the life of a once-rising Labor minister
now living on the edge in a seedy Bournemouth residential hotel. He's
never stopped loving her, though he has formed an alliance with the
hotelier; but he spends his days in a mildly alcoholic haze and subsists
on the paltry proceeds of left-wing political journalism that he writes
under a pseudonym. The burden of the play is, obviously, whether these two
will get together again. Since Rattigan's audience knows that his mode is
"comedy," it must also wonder whether, if they do, what "getting
together again" will turn out to mean, for three people, not just two.
In the second play, a man living at the same hotel as if he were a
retired army officer is arrested for a minor sexual scandal. This event
takes place at some unspecified time after the events of the first play.
"The Major" has been caught ogling young women in a movie theater. His
pretensions to gentility and to rank both collapse in the wake of
newspaper reports of his arrest, which describe his background more
accurately than he had done and which he cannot keep his fellow hotel
guests from reading. A woman who lives in the hotel with her astonishingly
domineering mother has had a kind of affection for him but, after the
incident hits the newspapers, her mother tries to organize the hotel's
other residents to expel the bounder. References to "Senator McCarthy" --
it's a '50s play, all right -- make some of the issues clear. The sexual
peccadillos the Major displays are less obvious (and they zoomed right
past me in the mid-'50s). For anyone who knew about Rattigan's sexual
orientation, however, they must have been quite clear at the time. And
their explicit link with the McCarthyite references is, for me,
very interesting.
I found the play(s) much more moving than I'd remembered them being --
of course, as a fourteen year-old, I'd understood none of them. Rattigan
was not my parents's normal theatrical cup of tea. Clearly, they
knew what the point of the McCarthyite references were, and (perhaps?)
they also knew something about the sexual politics at play in this work,
as well (although I am inclined to wonder about that last). Its politics
-- and perhaps its sexual politics -- must be why they took me to see this
play, written by someone in whom they never otherwise showed the slightest
interest. Unlike his other work, more or less "drawing room comedy,"
they'd have known that this piece was "important." They'd be enchanted to
learn, I hope, that, some forty-two years later, their doltish child
twigged.
I went on, for no particularly good reasons, to read a number of other
Rattigan plays while I had the volumes in hand. French Without
Tears (1936, in The Collected Plays, volume 1) is a sort of
boys-and-girls drawing room comedy of a type my parents would not have
thought especially amusing. While it has its moments, it doesn't seem
frothy enough to have much of a shelf life ahead of it.
Flare Path (1942 -- in the same volume) is a "war play."
Its resemblence to Casablanca is astonishing. Rattigan assigns the
"Victor Lazslo" role to a young R.A.F. pilot. He makes his "Rick" an
actor, come to a Lincolnshire hotel near the airbase to meet "Ilsa,"
Lazslo's wife, with whom he had been in love and whom, he now realizes, he
still loves. Rattigan's Ilsa is an actress. Stunned by the adolescent and
insipid adoration of her flyboy husband, as well as by his tawdry and
uninteresting provincial surroundings, she is ready to leave her husband
as soon as Rick reappears. But, during a night while he has been called
off on an unexpected special mission -- one of the four planes crashes, or
is shot down, on take-off, which she is able to watch from the hotel
window -- she realizes, in echt Casablanca mode, that her petty
concerns, their love, don't matter at all in the context of Britain's war.
If her love is what keeps flyboy flying, then that is the ideal towards
which her own sacrifice must tend. A kiss is just a kiss, etc. -- "etc."
all the way on to "yaddayaddayadda."
I'll bet the Air Marshals whom Rattigan, in a preface, recalls speaking
to himself, then a young Flying Officer and playwright, at the opening
night performance, must have loved it. (He says they all told him how he
should have done it better.) I didn't; but, as you can see, I found it
extremely interesting.
The play opened in London in August of 1942, at just about the time
shooting on Casablanca was coming to a halt. The stage play and
screenplay can therefore owe nothing to one another. Their resemblences
really must derive instead from a peculiar wartime zeitgeist which
both successfully expressed.
While the Sun Shines (1943, also in volume 1) is, like
French Without Tears -- which Rattigan calls its model -- another
drawing room comedy with standard love tangles to work through. Its major
deviation from so-called comedic "norms" is not very great: Rattigan
depict the men who compete, in wartime London, for the Hon. Miss
Right-and-a-Duke's-daughter-too, (1) an English seaman (but, though
incompetent to become an officer, he is, when all is said and done, an
earl, and quite a rich one), (2) a French lieutenant, and (3) an American
lieutenant. Derogation of the French and besting of the American
lieutenants (did you doubt the English lord's triumph for an instant?)
must have made this play a real satisfaction to its contemporary
audiences. Those audiences -- as was also true of the audiences for
French Without Tears -- gave the play a startlingly
incomprehensible run of more than a thousand performances.
Love in Idleness (1944, and also in volume 1) is
not simply a drawing room comedy. At the time it was produced, six
months after D-Day, it was clear that the War was about to be won, not
lost. It was, I take it, equally clear that "we" no longer need to pull
together; some pretences could at last be dropped. Among them was
any pretence that wartime goals of "social justice" were really of
interest to anyone at all. The result of this flash of insight is a
profoundly reactionary play.
A physician's widow, her twelve-year-old son evacuated to Canada in
1939, has at last found true love, which her husband had not provided her.
True love, it turns out, lives in the arms -- and in the luxurious
apartments, clothes, social circle, servants, and so forth, with which her
failure of a physician husband had also not provided her -- of Sir Big
Industrialist. Sir Big, a member of the wartime Cabinet, serves in the
Ministry, it would appear, of Tanks. Enter -- now that it is safe to
return -- the widow's evacuated son. He is no longer 12 but almost 18. He
is, however, quite vacuous. Failing to comprehend his dead father's
faults, he oddly takes on like a young Cromwell when he finds his "old"
Mum living in sin with Sir Big. She is so old that he cannot
understand in the slightest why she is even interested in such a
relationship; surely it cannot be, well, anything like, ahem, ess ee ex,
can it? To make matters worse, Sir Big, though separated from his
faithless wife, cannot divorce her until he is out of the Cabinet (the
scandal, doncha know?). Such goings on leave Young Cromwell amazed,
hurt, and angered. And he succeeds in breaking the relationship up. (His
old Mum is an idiot; this is the point in the play where I simply
part company with Rattigan's premises.)
Well, despite the break-up, you know how this is going to end; and --
although in a manner you won't exactly expect -- it does. What makes this
play offensively interesting is not its all-too-predictible (but
nicely-told) story, but rather its politics. Little Twerp Cromwell is not
only sexually puritanical; his sexual morality is also combined, oddly
enough, with "advanced" political thought which, the play avers, no one
but such an immature twerp -- a reader and admirer of "Laski"! of The
Labour Monthly! feh! -- could endure. Making the distinctly snot-nosed
and unadmirable Twerp the play's only spokesperson for anything "leftish"
is Rattigan's way of making the ideas for which Twerp stands (and which at
play's end he abandons anyway, as you will not be surprised to hear) a
topic for laughter rather than for thought. It is unfortunate that they
are, however, the only political ideas expressed in the play.
Neither Mum nor Sir Big ever "answers" them in any way that requires
articulation of thoughts in verbal form.
Curiously, this aspect of Love in Idleness builds upon a very
slight element also found in While the Sun Shines. There, the
French Lieutenant proclaims himself a "socialiste," adding that he
believes the aristocracy to be "doomed" to "extinction." The otherwise
booby English lord with whom he is conflict over a girl wonders at this
tasteless lapse -- but, after all, Colbert is simply a frog; who
could expect anything better from them? Although the English lord
alleges, in argument, that he "read[s] the New Statesman myself,"
clearly no audience can be imagined so ill-advised as to suppose that that
rag has had a major impact, any impact, on his, well, "thinking";
and, in any case, a raging beacon of leftist thought that paper was not.
Love in Idleness, a year later, made leftist thought safe to
ignore by making it the toy of the blundering young. While the Sun
Shines makes it something that the French may take seriously, but no
one else -- not even the American lieutenant -- is imagined as
silly enough to do so. The politics of these plays, especially the (it
would seem now) completely lunatic pairing of sexual puritanism and
leftist thinking, is a source of infinite interest, for that pairing,
"lunatic" though it may seem now, might not have seemed so lunatic
then. There is material here worth investigation. And the plays, though
not "great," are fun.
The Browning Version (1949) and Harlequinade: A
Farce (1949) -- both appear in Rattigan's Collected Plays,
volume 2 -- are two one-act plays performed together. As is not the
case with Separate Tables, they are very different from each other.
The Browning Version is set in an English public school (a private
boarding school, in American terms), and portrays a classics master taking
early and unlamented retirement; he has become "the Himmler" of his
classroom. His wife is involved with a younger master; we will eventually
learn that he has not been the first such liaison she has had, not by a
long shot. In many ways, the play seems like an early study for what
Edward Albee would, years later, turn into Who's Afraid of Virginia
Woolf; but the effect is rather as of a Who's Afraid written in
the mode of Tea and Sympathy: Deborah Kerr? sì. Uta Hagen?
non. Not even close. Quiet. Genteel. But good theater.
Harlequinade is about the dress rehearsal (of Romeo and
Juliet) from hell. Romeo is having trouble demonstrating the nimble
leap and agility we expect a young man to display. Another actor leaves in
a fit of pique, bare hours before opening. The lights aren't yet right.
And into this mess walks even the bastard daughter whom the aging leading
man had left behind, completely unwittingly, when, in 1926, he last played
the provincial rathole where the theater seems to located (he had thought
it was Sheffield; he thought wrong). Alas, since he had in fact married
her mother, and has never actually done anything quite so low as to
divorce her, it is his current wife (Juliet, of course) and their
child who seem, legally speaking, out of the loop; this new and completely
unexpected daughter is no bastard at all. At least, not literally. But,
since she has brought his first grandchild 'round for her old dad to see,
and this while old dad is still working on improving the nimble leap your
young Romeo needs, maybe she is a bastard after all. At least
metaphorically.
On the other hand, the leading man is decidedly out of his loop, too --
and, for that matter, so is every other theatrical person in the play. A
"backstage" glimpse of The Theater, presented in the mode of farce, this
is a play almost guaranteed to please an audience that likes
theater. Unfortunately, it reads less well by far than it must perform. Or
than one hopes it performs. Without a cast capable of the minute
sense of timing that Rattigan requires, the staged play will be as fresh
as last week's mackerel. On the page, it is something of a pancake.
Adventure Story (1949) (also in volume 2) looks at Alexander
the Great. Written in the wake of the recently-deceased Hitler, on the one
hand, and the still-quite-active Stalin, on the other, this play
represents Rattigan's surprisingly sympathetic look at what goes wrong in
the makeup of the person who, by making all power flow from himself, would
turn the world into a unified and peaceful place. Things don't end well
for Alexander in this play; nor had they, a few short years before, for
Mr. Hitler. Mr. Stalin was not looking well, either: Jewish doctors had
recently been caught while busily plotting against his continued health,
so he alleged, and the man's paranoia count seems to have been on the
rise; in four short years, he too would die. It is the sympathy for
his Alexander, emerging though it did in this milieu, that I found the
strangest aspect of Rattigan's play. Where did it come from?
Also in volume 2 is Who Is Sylvia? (1951). This play looks
at a couple of friends and great lovers. It opens in 1917, when one of
them is embarking on a diplomatic, the other on a military career, and
takes them through 1929 and on into 1950. By then, one is the U.K.'s
ambassador in Paris, the other a general officer, but they are both still
-- hack, hack; cough cough; bit of a chll in the air, doncha think? -- up
to their boys-will-be-boys games in their same old Knightsbridge
love-nest. It's Peter Pan in bed: these boys just don't want to
grow up.
It turns out that, all along, the diplomat's very grown-up wife
has known what the boys are up to. With profound womanly wisdom, she has
turned a blind eye on their games and lies -- knowing guiltily that there
must be something she fails to provide for her wayward husband, but
also knowing that their marriage itself need not be at risk -- until the
evening when, in 1950, their actor son is about to make a splash as Antony
in a production of Julius Caesar. She wants to go see him do so in
the place of the two lads's girlfriends.
Who Is Sylvia? is a deeply fluffy play, and yet . . . in
its tolerance of sexual infidelity and lies it is also doing something
more than merely hinting at the notion that what people do (or don't do)
in bed may not, mirabile dictu, be what defines them. This
is not exactly a "new" idea; it is not even exactly any kind of
"idea." It does strike me as odd to find it popularly on display in a play
of this date.
The Deep Blue Sea (1952) (also in volume 2)
is even more suspect in its sexual ideology than Sylvia and,
therefore, at least as interesting. The heroine (a role performed by a
young Peggy Ashcroft) has, at curtain's rise, just committed suicide --
not, she will shortly be dismayed to learn, with complete effectiveness.
The smell of gas leads neighbors to break into her flat and she is quickly
revived by a bookie's assistant, also a neighbor in the same decaying
apartment building in which she lives. He is actually a de-frocked
physician banned from his profession after the commission of some
unspecified medical infraction. The audience knows that Mr. Miller is a
good guy, however, because he remains deeply committed to the care of
children suffering from polio (he volunteers at a local hospital). He is
also some sort of "German" -- does this mean "Jewish"? -- refugee, as of
1936, to England.
Revived, Hester (she does tend rather to wear a scarlet letter)
goes on to endure confrontations during the rest of the play with, first,
the young quondam R.A.F. test pilot whose inability to love her the way
she wants to be loved is the proximate cause of her failed suicide
attempt; with, second, the quite proper, "Sir"-bearing and Rolls-driving
legal beagle, her husband, whom she had abandoned without even a divorce
in order to pursue her mad affair with the test pilot; and with, third,
herself and the sorry mess that is, now, her life. It is the de-frocked
physician from whom she learns how to endure still more of what life has
in store for her.
This play reads as if it were one of Tennessee Williams's plays from
the later 1950s which depict a peck of people living on the edge --
Night of the Iguana, for instance. It wants both Williams's
lyricism and his far more edgy sense of where the edge lies and how
deep it is. But it's loitering with intent in exactly the same
neighborhood.
Last month -- speaking of
Tennessee Williams -- I was able to see and to read both Not About Nightingales and Orpheus Descending. This month,
having last seen Camino Real (Norfolk, Conn.: New Directions,
1953) on July 15, 1960, in the St. Marks Playhouse production directed
by José Quintero, I toddled off to see it again in scenic
Wlliamstown, Massachusetts. And read it.
Camino Real is an amazing reading experience -- as odd, amazing,
and exciting as it is to see. Atlhough it is set in some vaguely
Trujillo-like Latin American dictatorship, the play is a meditation on
many of the most unpleasant aspects of life as lived, experienced,
imagined, and feared in Eisenhower and Dulles's perfectly nuclear Fortress
America: a place and a time about which Williams has stunningly little
good to say. But it disappointed an audience taught to look to Williams
for a peculiar variety of "realism" by its refusal to deal with that
America in terms that might, even remotely, be thought "realistic."
Drawing upon elements of expressionist and absurdist drama, and with
passages redolent of Williams's signature poetic lyricism, the play looks
forward to a theater for which 1953 America was not at all ready. In fact,
Camino Real proved an extremely expensive Broadway flop, even in
Elia Kazan's clean hands. Ought this fact to surprise anyone? Despite a
debt to the theater of Odets and at least an appearance of "social
realism," if not exactly of "realism," the much earlier Not About
Nightingales not only failed to attain a decent reception, it could
not even achieve its own production; and this astonishing lacuna took,
curiously, very many more years to be filled than it took Camino
Real to begin to be discovered by its audience. Not, by the
way, that the "discovery" of Camino Real is now complete: Ben
Brantley's generally positive but still somewhat gee-this-is-confusing
review in a notably deteriorating newspaper-allegedly-of-record (June 28,
1999), as well as the slow but steady seepage of audience from the
Williamstown production Brantley and I both saw, makes the play's capacity
still to epater les bourgeois perfectly clear.
Apart from recommending it warmly to anyone who has not yet experienced
it either on the page or on the stage, Camino Real is not, as it
happens, a play I want to say much else about. I fear that my taste for
talk about this play has been spoiled by the experience of reading Jan
Balakian's "Camino Real: Williams's Allegory About the
Fifties," an essay in The Cambridge Companion to Tennessee
Williams, ed. Matthew C. Roudané, Cambridge Companions to
Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 67-94.
An essay whose third sentence remarks that Orpheus Descending is
"Williams's version of the myth of Sisyphus" (p. 67) is not off to what
the unprejudiced reader is likely to consider a very good start.
Nonetheless, in all fairness, this is the kind of slip one can understand.
I've done something similar myself, printing -- twice! -- a wrong title
instead of the one I meant. In fact, the title of a book by the author I
was writing about, though not the right one, and with no spelling errors,
the error didn't call attention to itself and thus avoided correction. On
the other hand, Balakian follows up this more or less venial error -- as,
in fairness to myself, I did not -- with at least thirty-five
misquotations, misattributions, and mistranscriptions, errors that leave
her reader in complete uncertainty about the actual sources she cites.
She claims to be using the same 1953 edition of Camino Real
I read. I can see no reason at all to trust this claim.
Balakian's is not an entirely stupid essay although, apart from tracing
its thick tissue of error, its excitements are, alas, not many. Considered
as "scholarship," however, it is sheer travesty. Travesty on such a
grand scale calls into question whatever in the essay seems to have even
slight value. Simultaneously, it magnifies a reader's dismay about other
matters with which his disagreements might otherwise have been allowed to
sleep. I think, for instance, of Balakian's reference to "the liberalism
of the sixties" (p. 82) as an "explanation" for the warmth with which
Quintero's production was received . . . when the year she is writing
about is 1960! This is a simply wonderful instance of chronological
determinism, its magnificence enhanced by an Alice-in-Wonderland
substratum of assumptions . . . that, for example, "the sixties" must have
begun on January 1st of the same year that the junior senator from
Massachusetts would, that autumn, be elected to the American Presidency,
an office into which he would enter on January 20, 1961. This
chronological moment is followed almost immediately by a slightly
anachronistic reference to Brooks Atkinson's admiration of the play
in Quintero's 1960 production, that newly liberal sixties-ish year. Of
course, as Balakian herself has already noticed -- and at the top of this
very same page 82 -- Atkinson was one of very few theater critics
who had already liked Camino Real when he reviewed it in the
noticeably illiberal year of 1953. Perhaps Mr. Atkinson was really
a sixties flower-child-in-hiding in the early fifties?
Where, one wonders, was her editor? where the readers for a Press that
claims some sort of scholarly distinction? None of these very numerous
errors -- I haven't bothered to list the misquotations and mis-assigned
quotations that litter Balakian's text, but I did find myself wondering
why she likes to assign (mythically, as it happens) so many
passages to "page 100" in Camino Real -- none of these errors, as I
say, should have been difficult to catch. No expert, but a mere reader,
even I found them simply too blatant to ignore. Quite clearly, no one
knowledgeable bothered to look.
A few months ago, I read and greatly enjoyed The Weir, a new play by
Conor McPherson. I saw The Weir in its (quite marvelous)
Broadway incarnation at The Walter Kerr Theater (219 West 48th Street)
this month. Just a few days before I got there, I'd seen McPherson's
somewhat earlier play, This Lime Tree Bower (1996), in a
production at Primary Stages (345 West 45th Street, but "off-Broadway"
nonetheless). This Lime Tree Bower, The Weir, and three
additional plays by McPherson all appear in The Weir and Other
Plays (New York: Theatre Communications Group, 1999, $15.95 in
paperback). It is well worth picking up and reading.
To say that This Lime Tree Bower is a wonderful play is at once
too much and too little. It is an extremely odd experience in the theater
since nothing -- quite literally nothing -- "happens" on stage at
all. Three people -- a secondary school student, his older brother, and a
friend who teaches philosophy at the local university and is also dating
their sister -- pitch monologues at the audience, and, to a much lesser
degree, at one another. The storytellers in The Weir are at least
located. They are "in a setting," a country bar, responding to one another
over a specified course of time: the evening when one of them has just
moved into the neighborhood. The three people in This Lime Tree
Bower are "set" no place at all -- or, to put this somewhat
differently, they exist only on a bare stage. They speak their lines to
the audience. While they hear and respond, at least a little bit, to one
another, they are not anyplace "real."
And it doesn't matter. Not at all. Not one whit. The experiences these
three people relate turn out to intertwine: they make up one long,
complicated story with a lot of separate "lines." And although they are
"told" to us -- audience; readers -- they are nonetheless pefectly
"dramatic." We don't need to watch them in order to see
them. As theater, this non-illusionary illusion is a complete tour de
force, a sheer revelation about the power of story-telling and
narration. Having tried the play both ways, on stage and in print, I can
assure you that it works both in the theater and on the page, as a
read experience. Try it. You'll like it.
Another play I read this month was David Hare's The
Judas Kiss (New York: Grove, 1998). I wish I had seen this play;
from reading it, it seems to me far and away the best play by David Hare I
know. A play that tries to re-imagine Wilde's decision to stay with Lord
Alfred Douglas and face arrest, trial, and imprisonment, and then (in the
second act) Lord Alfred Douglas's decision, after Wilde's release, to
leave him and return to England, this is a study in cowardice, hypocrisy,
and betrayal on a grand scale (vide its title). I found it moving
and convincing, a wonderful piece of theater.
On the other hand, by comparison (say) with Conor McPherson, Hare
is the Terence Rattigan of the modern theater: a writer of
well-made, easily-digestible plays. Even The Judas Kiss is a play
that asks very little of its audience, other than a slight adjustment,
perhaps, of attitude.
When, this past March, I mentioned reading two novels by
Daniel
Silva, I added, about The Mark of the Assassin, that "Silva
has a sequel in bookstores now. I'm not running." I didn't. But it
came to me -- that is, a copy turned up on my library's "just in"
shelves -- and . . . oh, what the hell, I read it anyway: The
Marching Season (New York: Random House, 1999).
In truth, this book is just as silly, as contrived, and as
paranoid as Mark of the Assassin. It follows the careers of Michael
Osbourne, CIA agent extraordinaire, his legal-beagle wife, her sometime
senatorial and now ambassadorial father, and the once-Soviet now freelance
assassin, "October," through some more convolutions. These concern the
Troubles in Northern Ireland -- it is a post-Cold War world, isn't
it? In Silva's version, it's Prods killing Prods (as a breathless
newscaster remarks at one point midway through the book). Tony Blair and
Gerry Adams are among the characters, who also include, for whatever this
is worth, A Reigning Monarch; in other spheres, however, corruption is
rampant; and as an added treat we get to watch Protestant and IRA
extremists, in what I imagine is supposed to look like even-handed
detestation. I didn't believe any of it, especially the end. Silva seemed
to me not only to strive a little too hard to tie up too many knots at
once while still leaving room for an inevitable sequel-to-the-sequel but
also (once again) to run out of gas before I had. On the other hand . . .
well, on the other hand, I did finish it. And I'm trying very hard
to feel guilty about it.
In another life, I actually write -- and, mirabile
dictu, they get published! -- "real" book reviews. One has
recently appeared in a periodical published by the University of Chicago
Press and enticingly entitled The Library Quarterly. In LQ's
issue for January 1999 (69:1, 130-133) appears my "formal" review of
The Future of the Book, ed. Geoffrey Nunberg (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1996). As it happens, my review was
not only a wee bit unhappy with the product, it was also a little long.
The version in LQ is therefore slightly reduced. The terminally
curious might find it amusing to see the fuller,
slightly earlier version of what happened to Nunberg's anthology at my
reviewing hands.
Not only is it about as raucous an "academic" novel as
any I have read -- "academic" in the manner of Pale Fire more than
of Moo, however -- Lee Siegel's Love in a Dead Language
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999) is also a gas from
beginning to end. Professor Leo Roth is an Indologist at Western
California University. Ms. Lalita Gupta is an Angeleno who has wandered
into his class, since her parents labor under the illusion that she needs
to know something about "her culture" (they're wrong; it isn't her
culture). Lolita-like sparks (Lalita/Lolita -- is there a difference?)
fly. Mrs. Roth -- Mrs. Sophia White-Roth, to be precise -- specializes in
Restoration drama and is a dean at WCU. The couple have one surviving
child, a son, who writes "mirror" poetry: long poems that need to be held
up to a mirror in order to be read. His girlfriend is twice his age and
specializes in writing pornography. (A daughter, now dead, was raped and
murdered in late childhood.) One of Roth's graduate students -- his
only graduate student, in fact -- Anang Saighal "narrates" or
"frames" the novel, which takes the form of Roth's posthumously presented
translation of and commentary on the Kamasutra as edited by
Saighal.
Out of this mélange, Siegel concocts a comedy about American
academics; "orientalism" and its strong element of "orient" = "lack of
sexual restraint"; the ways in which texts become guides to lives;
Hollywood's "India"; the "India" of Americans -- and a host of other
matters. The novel is howlingly funny, even though some of it depends on
the comedic use of materials that are not comedic at all. Teacher-student
sexual relationships, for example, are at present stuff that it is
difficult to make jokes about. Siegel also offends sensibilities by using
ethnic, religious, or linguistic stereotypes that are also difficult to
read with an easy heart. Leo Roth is not "Jewish" -- his movie star
father was married to a non-Jewish movie star woman; Anang Saighal
is Jewish -- he comes from Indianapolis, where both parents were
physicians, and the male one of them, from India, happened to be married
to a female one who was Jewish, which makes Anang Jewish, too. Several
Indian characters -- in L.A. as well as in India -- seem to have taken
speech lessons from Peter Sellers. Lalita's basketball-star boyfriend has
stepped out of an African-American fantasy (and their relationship is one
Lalita's parents regard as a Mississippi Massala nightmare) . . .
Alas, all I can say is that my sensibilities were not offended: I
confess that I found it all amusing, and more.
I know nothing about India or about the various disciplines of
Indological studies, and I doubt that this book has remedied my
intellectual lacunae in these areas. On the other hand, I enjoyed it
enormously, even if, in sober truth, Nabokov might have done it all just a
tad better. No matter: Siegel is at least playing in the same ballpark.
That, I take it, is something of a feat.
I know no rare book librarians who liked (and at least
one archivist who actively loathed) Martha Cooley's The
Archivist (Boston: Little, Brown, 1998 -- and now available in a
paperback edition, as well). Anyone who reads this novel for insight into
the kind of work people like me do, or into the professional world my
colleagues and I live in, is in desperate need of a reality check.
None of it is believable. Much of it is positively offensive in
both its unnecessary ignorance and the picture it draws of the archivist
and his work that lies at its center. I take it that Arlene
Schmuland might agree with this view; certainly, the view she provides
of the book in "The Archival Image in Fiction: An Analysis and
Annotated Bibliography," American Archivist, 62:1 (Spring 1999),
24-73, makes clear her disapproval of Cooley's reliance on
professional stereotypes and portrayal of despicably unprofessional
behavior.
If this is all you're prepared to notice about the book, then you won't
like it much, either. But I did. Cooley gets things wrong? Yup; too bad.
She stereotypes? I'm sorry. These points are true; I found them irrelevant
when weighed against the novel's other virtues. Set though it is in an
"archive" (Cooley means "a rare book and manuscript library"), and
drawing a central character who is an "archivist" (Cooley means "a
manuscripts librarian"), The Archivist isn't about archives at all.
It's about the relationships of men and women, and how these may fail
catastrophically. It's about the relationships of Christians and Jews, and
how these may fail, also catastrophically. It's about the
Holocaust, about as catastrophic an instance of the second failure as one
can envision. It's about the ways in which its characters's lives are
marked by history -- their own histories, as well as that of the world in
which they live. It's about the precarious balance between "sanity" and
"insanity"; it's about love and its permutations (most of them
disastrous); it's even about poetry and T. S. Eliot. (I found myself
thinking again, as I had when I read and saw Margaret
Edson's Wit, that the old boy is once again connecting to
modern readers, contrary to my glib expectations about his imaginative
demise.)
Matt, the curator in question, is approached by graduate student
Roberta for access to the sealed correspondence -- Eliot's end of it,
anyway -- between the poet and Emily Hale. Roberta reminds Matt of his
long-dead wife, Judith, who had killed herself after five years in a
mental hospital way back in 1965 (it's now the early 1980s). Like some
recent Secretaries of State, Roberta had been raised by refugee parents as
a Christian but has recently discovered that her parents had converted to
Protestantism from Judaism after their escape to America. This discovery
of her "roots" has shaken her profoundly. Judith, a secularized Jew when
she married Protestant Matt, had identified increasingly with her Judaism
when, in the years following the end of the War, details about the
Holocaust became clear to her. She had also identified herself
increasingly with the dead, becoming ever less able to distance herself
from their suffering and from the emotional carnage that every
day's news set before her. The ways in which these three people, one of
them long dead, affect one another, their various seductions and
betrayals, seem replicated in some sense by Eliot's betrayal of Emily
Hale. After Vivienne, his institutionalized wife, died in 1947, Eliot
ought to have been free to marry the woman with whom he had carried on for
a long time an intimate friendship and correspondence. Instead, he fled
the relationship once its consummation became possible for him (and years
later married another woman altogether). Hale's sealed collection,
preserved despite Eliot's wish that his letters be destroyed, parallels
Judith's journal. Written during the years of her hospitalization, the
journal has been preserved and sent to Matt, despite Judith's written
instructions giving it to the doctor who had treated her and asking that
it be read only by him and then destroyed.
All this may sound complicated. It is. It may not sound gripping. But
it is that, too. I found The Archivist a hard book to read. People
treat one another viciously throughout it, sometimes intentionally,
sometimes not. Too many emotional cripples turn up in its pages. I am not
entirely comfortable with a book that veers on essentializing "Jewishness"
in the way it relates Judith and Roberta. And Cooley could easily
have learned enough about library work to make Matt and his work situation
real instead of phoney, and the price of such knowledge would not
have required her to change a single plot detail. Even so, she has written
a significant meditation on many important themes -- not least among them
the hold the past has on us now -- and the tiny redemption that one
character tries to attain at the novel's end is one I found, not annoying,
but moving.
"Archivists"? No. In most other respects, however, I found Cooley's
book to be a gorgeous and an important novel.
I read two "children's books" by Walter
D. Edmonds this month. Both repaid my attention. The first is a
big, fat novel: Bert Breen's Barn (1975; rpt. Syracuse, NY:
Syracuse University Press, 1991, paperback). A classic
bildungsroman in which a young man discovers how to become the man
he wants to be when he grows up, Bert Breen's Barn is also an
adventure story filled with local detail about upstate New York farm life,
and social relations, and barns and their raising: reading it with the
last point in mind is better than watching the Amish barn-raising
in Witness.
The second of Edmonds's books is a short, simple story for children,
The Matchlock Gun (1941; rpt. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1953).
Also set, as is usually the case with Edmonds, in upstate New York, the
tale concerns a frontier family, Indian raids, and a heroic (and
very frightened) young boy, his mother, and his sister. If you were
to tell me that it doesn't have a profound bone anywhere in its body I'd
cheerfully agree with you, more or less, while adding that it's a sweet
little book anyway. I'm glad I've now read it, whether or not Edmonds ever
thought of old people like me as its audience.
In a play-reading mood (as was already evident last
month), I picked up some volumes by Richard Nelson. I'm really not
sure why; I am not even sure how I knew his name, but for the accidents of
having seen individual plays here and there in bookshops -- not many! --
that still carry drama by people other than Ibsen, Mamet, Miller,
Shakespeare, and Williams, and a thick volume of his collected plays from
Faber, and also, I suppose, because I order his plays now and again for
the library I work at. Every so often, you should at least read
some of these people?
For whatever reason, then, I started with Some Americans
Abroad (London: Faber, 1989). It is reprinted in Nelson's
Plays One (London: Faber, 1999). Some Americans
Abroad is about people completely loathesome -- and they teach
English literature! (They come from a small New England college that
appears suspiciously like Middlebury.) They are so loathesome that
one wonders how the play manages to be so compelling. And compelling it
is, despite -- or because of? -- the disgust engendered by almost
everything the characters are and do.
How did I loathe them? Let me count the ways: You want to
just plain puke. One could go on forever. The list of the virtues of Nelson's
characters, by contrast, is not simply much shorter; it is non-existent.
The play is endlessly fascinating almost in direct proportion to how
repellent one finds the creeps who populate it.
. . . And then, one wonders: what's the perspective on his creation of
its author? how does Nelson view his characters and their
"Americanness"? What's in it for him?
An American writing about witless Americans for a British audience, he
plays, in this work commissioned by the Royal Shakespeare Company, with
his Americans's droolingly reverent attitudes towards "England" generally.
Among the specific "English" things about which their exhalations are
especially breathless are the plays they see at the Royal Shakespeare
Company. About these plays they gush. They expound. They pontificate. They
go on to admire English actors -- in a play performed, one assumes, by
English actors. In fact, a whole series of amazingly self-satisfied
metadramatic moments litters this play. One would love to know:
how were these moments played?
If, on the one hand, Nelson's wonderfully advanced American English
literature professors, politically moronic, tone-deaf, and corrupt, lack
either wit or interest, they are, on the other, so completely
wanting in both that one watches them in fascinated horror. Can
anyone, let alone any group, really be this abysmally dim?
Nelson draws them well enough to convince you that the answer is an
unequivocal "Yes."
Some Americans Abroad is, in short, a very troubling play. And I
just loved it. Reading it, I felt like a mouse watching a snake. And, by
God! it got me.
Although it was written earlier than Some Americans Abroad, I read
Nelson's 1986 Principia Scriptoriae (in Principia
Scriptoriae, with Between East and West (London: Faber, 1992)
after having read the academic play. (Principia Scriptoriae also
appears in Plays One.) I simply couldn't put this play down at all
(although I read it on a very bad day). It looks at two writers,
made friends by unusual (and unpleasant) circumstances, first in 1970,
then in 1985.
In 1970, they happen to be in prison, and torture victims, in the Latin
American dictatorship that is home for one of them (Ernesto; Bill is a
visiting American). In 1985, they meet again in the same country, which
has since undergone a leftist revolution. Bill has accompanied a
delegation of writers -- one from Germany, another from Italy, a third
from the U.S. -- come to seek the release from prison of a well-known
right-wing poet who had represented the old regime as its ambassador to
Franco's Spain. He had, in fact, been the subject of discussion by the two
imprisoned boys of 1970. Then they had admired the work and tried to
distinguish between it and the political attitudes of the man who produced
it.
Now, however, Ernesto is part of the "negotiating" team for the new
leftist government, as the visiting literary dignataries and the locals
meet to discuss releasing the eminent poet from his imprisonment. Bill and
Ernesto may share intimate memories of almost unspeakable experiences.
Their experiences may give them a very precise insight into what the
eminent old poet is enduring while discussants continue to discuss. But
adulthood, position, "responsibility": all bring new pressures to bear on
these men and their compatriots, pressures that neither of the two young
man had foreseen when they first met and suffered together.
A lovely and very smart play, Principia Scriptoriae is a
thoughtful and important one, as well.
The play bound with it in the edition I read, Between East And
West, is not included in Plays One; too bad. I liked this
play a lot, too.
It depicts two Czech artistic emigrés to New York -- the play's
composition predates the collapse of the Iron Curtain -- and the stifling
solitude and astonishing oddity of American life as these two older people
experience both. The play hinges on their differing abilities to
accommodate themselves to solitude and oddity. The man is a director;
the woman, an actress. She is clearly far more tied to her language than
he -- and far more hampered by her difficulties with English -- and indeed
it is he who lands work. She is terrified even of trying.
Their eminence at home makes their government hope that they can be
induced to re-defect and return. They receive several overtures to
this effect, filled with promises of things that New York is simply not
able to provide them. This odd sense of refuge, or release, is
simultaneously accompanied by the couple's paranoia -- although the
audience is never certain about just how "paranoid" they are being
-- about the long reach (even as far as New York City!) of the apparatus
of their police state. This ongoing fear is an aspect of their new lives
in the west that poisons those lives in ways neither of them could
possibly have anticipated.
A short play, and very much a product of its times, Between East and
West is another Nelson play well worth reading.
Nelson's Christopher Columbus and the Discovery of Japan
(London: Faber, 1992) is also not in Plays One; it is a
stunning play. It deals with Columbus in the manner of a history play;
and, like other history plays one has bumped into, it does so in order to
ask some fundamental questions about the nature of history. But its
history is not necessarily "political"; it is esthetic. Nelson takes the
man and emphasizes his critical and admiring relationship with a
poet-dramatist schoolmate and his own ("creative"?) lies (or fictions?),
so as to show his audience Columbus's essentially artistic drive to create
his own reality. The action is occasionally embarrassing, often painful,
and always brilliant.
Another of Nelson's plays not in Plays One is Roots in
Water (New York: Broadway Play Publishing, 1991). Presented on
stage at Woodstock, New York, in an earlier version, and then broadcast in
this version as a radio play by the BBC, Roots in Water is a
frighteningly angry and extremely political play that may be among the
most thoroughgoing indictments of recent American political and moral life
I have encountered in literary form. It may not be pleasant to watch (or
to read, or to hear), but it is worth the encounter. The play is divided
into twelve vignettes in two acts. Each vignette presents a small number
of characters -- I recall no carryovers from one vignette to another --
and together they move in rough sequence from 1976 to 1988 (two vignettes
are set in 1984; 1985 and 1987 are omitted). Characters all recall their
involvement in the good old days, that is, the era when, in their various
ways, they were engaged by the Vietnam War, most of them as protestors
against it. With such testimonials to their own political sanctity tucked
safely into their memorial pockets, they all find it easy to ignore what
they are doing -- and what they have become -- in the present each
vignette depicts. They ignore just as easily what their increasing
defection from political consciousness, let alone political action,
entails for themselves and the society they represent.
Roots in Water is not an easy play to describe. I fear I have
made it sound far more like a tract than the emotionally convincing, and
wrenching, experience it is. As I go on reading Nelson's work, he seems
more and more important as a contemporary American dramatist . . . and it
becomes ever more obvious to me why his reputation seems to be so strictly
curtailed.
This is a magnificent play.
Last month, I wrote about the contents of the first
two volumes of the Collected Plays of Terence
Rattigan. This month, I read a bit more of his work, starting with
After the Dance (1939; rpt. London: Nick Hern Books, 1995).
This paperback is available both in the U.K. and in the U.S.; it is
extremely well-introduced by Dan Rebellato, who provides a quick
biographical survey of Rattigan's life and career and then a separate
brief essay on this play.
The play was not one of the string of early successes that
Rattigan liked to recall himself as having experienced when he entered the
theater in the later 1930s. After about sixty performances, it was pulled
off the boards in August of 1939, a few short weeks before the Second
World War began for his audience. Rebellato speculates that the play was
too uncomfortable for an audience that knew war was coming and wanted
something far more escapist than this play provided. Escapist it is surely
not.
After the Dance is a play about failures: failures of love;
failures of social and personal responsibility; failures of empathy and
intelligence. Although these failures take place on the small scale of the
personal world, they mirror the larger failures that leave that world part
of a society careening towards disaster at an ever-increasing clip as the
play proceeds. One character has already been conscripted as the play
draws to its close; another snorts in disbelief at the thought of his
"future." One character has committed suicide by the end of Act II; a
second has begun a different kind of suicide at the end of Act III.
This is not a comedy of the sort Rattigan is supposed to be known for.
When I finished reading it I was left wondering what he could have
been thinking when he left it out of his Collected Plays. I
remarked, last month, my impression that, in a play like The Deep Blue Sea (1952), Rattigan
had begun to flirt, albeit on his own terms, with a dramatic territory
rather more conventionally associated with such Americans as Tennessee
Williams. Night thoughts, the soul at the end of its tether, are far from
the universe of the English upper middle-class drawing room that is
Rattigan Country. But it is the universe of The Deep Blue
Sea -- and it is the universe of this play, as well, which is very
interesting and very well worth picking up to read.
I returned to Rattigan's Collected Plays, vol. III (London:
Hamish Hamilton, 1964), and read his 1954 play, The Sleeping
Prince. Let it lie.
I may have let The Sleeping Prince lie -- but I did not let volume
three of his Collected Plays lie, also. Some time after recovering
from The Sleeping Prince, I picked up the volume again and went on
to read Rattigan's Variation on a Theme (1958). It seems to
me that, reading this play, I found myself once again in a country that
lies very close to the borders of Tennessee Williams Land. (As mentioned
above, I'd already had this response when I read an earlier play by
Rattigan, The Deep Blue Sea.)
A consumptive social climbing professional divorcée; her
emotionally distant daughter; a Birmingham-born poseur of a ballet dancer
and his gay mentor; a German black market profiteer now in the market for
a beautiful (and notorious) wife; and a down-at-heels minor aristocrat
earning her way as the paid companion to the divorcée: all these
characters come together, with a few other minor but equally lost souls as
well, at the divorcée's château in Cannes. Perhaps to
everyone's surprise, love -- or is it merely need? -- breaks out.
Love, it turns out, at least in this milieu, is A Big Mistake: it
doesn't stand a chance. It's not allowed. If it makes an appearance
despite its proscription, it cannot be permitted. For those who persist in
it anyway, its wages are all too likely to be death.
I simply cannot be the only reader of Rattigan who has
heard iguanas singing by night when he encountered this play. It is an
extremely noisy cry of despair. I found it completely untenable in the
ways Rattigan chooses to exhibit that despair. The emotional world of
Williams is very nearly turned into a light and fluffy omelet by its
re-location in the social world of Tender Is the Night. I would
therefore not recommend it at all -- but for the fact that its theoretical
untenability melts away completely before the play's sheer force.
In fact, and despite my very few remaining better instincts, I recommend
this play quite warmly.
Ross: A Dramatic Portrait (1960) portrays T. E. Lawrence at
a time when, playing at being an enlisted man in the RAF ("Ross"), he is
trying to escape the consequences of his actions and of the brutalities he
had provoked and endured while in the Middle East during World War I. I'm
not quite sure what to say about this play. I enjoyed it; I also enjoyed
Peter O'Toole as Lawrence of Arabia in the movie that appeared more or
less at the same time . . . and yet I've never been entirely captivated by
the Lawrence mystique. In many ways, this play offers a complicated
portrait of a victim, an isolated soul who has wandered more or less
inadvertently into "heroism"; and it is therefore more satisfying than the
picture of Lawrence I remember the movie as having drawn. It still felt
somewhat insubstantial to me, even though I read it quickly and with
considerable enjoyment. Is this, then, a mixed review? I think so.
It is a mixed review that I also find myself giving to Rattigan's 1962
Heart to Heart: A Play for Television, the last of the plays
found in the third volume of Rattigan's Collected Plays. An
academic has wandered into television stardom as the ace interviewer of
various public figures of the day. He longs for the married woman who is
one of his television colleagues; regrets his lost academic position, in
which he was involved, as television does not allow him to remain
involved, with the life of the mind; and he comes to admit that his own
marriage is a shambles, his wife not only sleeping, now and again, with
another man but also staying with him only for the sake of the money and
position his television position has obtained for them. It is all a
grandly upper-bourgeois mess.
Along comes a profoundly melodramatic moment when, confronted by the
prospect of an interview with a rising political figure who seems to be
concocted out of New Hampshire's Sherman Adams transferred into the
British Parliament, that is, a real crook, and threatened by his
time-serving masters and his wife, he has to decide whether to stretch
into the principles once his, seek the love of his married colleague,
abandon his old wife, and act on principle instead of expediency. Ah, yes,
but Principles, doncha know, are all so muddied here . . . and
Rattigan allows his protagonist, I am sorry to say, to have his cake and
eat it, too. More or less. It's a back-patting but ironic moment the play
reaches at its end, and I was not, I fear, convinced by it at all.
Seeing Oliver Parker's movie version of Oscar Wilde's
An Ideal Husband -- which I last saw in Peter Hall's 1996
production at the Theatre Royal, Haymarket -- left me wondering why anyone
would waste such good actors, and his own time and energy, making a movie
that travesties the play on which it is allegedly based. I thought perhaps
that my memory of the play was bad so I re-read it (in the edition of
Wilde's Complete Works introduced by Vyvyan Holland [1966]
and published in the U.S. as a Harper Perennial paperback in
1989). My memory of the play was not bad. A lovely play,
with a wonderful male lead in Lord Goring and a horrific female lead in
Mrs. Cheveley, An Ideal Husband is enormously enjoyable reading,
and, as a play, enormously enjoyable watching, despite moments when it
seems all too easily reduced to a Beatles song ("All You Need Is Love").
The movie is completely skippable but for the work of Julianne Moore (Mrs.
Cheveley). The play is not.
Having seen Warren Leight's Side Man in
its New York production recently, I thought it might be interesting to see
how the play -- a powerful experience in the theater -- read. I picked up
the printed text (available in paper: New York: Grove, 1998, for
$12.00) and read straight through. It was very nearly as beautiful,
although I couldn't hear the miraculous voice of the actress who
played Terry, the play's wife and mother, in the text, and realized how
very much its director and its actors gave Leight's play.
On the other hand, it gives them room to play. Leight is looking at
trumpeters, trombonists, from the big band and be-bop era, people who, not
themselves the "names" at the top of the bands, are nonetheless the people
who love and know the music and make it work: the "side men" of the play's
title. In Leight's dramatic world, they are all white, not black, which I
found a little odd, though not entirely incomprehensible. Like the blacks
with whom they work, however, they are always a little off the charts of
the local police -- the New York police, of course -- and their very
livelihoods can be extinguished in a moment of irreparable rage. This
happens to one of Leight's characters -- an addict, not a junkie: "it's a
subtle distinction" -- when a cop knocks out several of his front teeth:
not a career move if blowing horns happens to be your schtick. Neither is
the eight years up the river that follow.
The play is told from the point of view of Terry's son, Clifford, whose
father, Gene, is a trumpet player. Their marriage is not a happy one, to
put it mildly, and Clifford's job is to try to help keep things together
until the moment comes when nothing will work any longer. The play ends
with Clifford himself about to try something his family has always made
seem impossible, a career as an artist. If being "an artist" had meant
living the kind of crazy lives his parents had lived, then it was too
distressing for Clifford to contemplate doing the same sorts of things all
over again to himself. But the play takes us through his memories up to a
present when he can at least will himself to try; and it is, in
that sense, a dramatization of the triumph of hope over experience.
But the play is triumphant in other respects, too. I had thought, after
seeing it, that it would prove to be a play that sees better than
it reads, a play in which the actual language doesn't matter all
that much. Now that I've read it, I don't think that's true. It helps to
"hear" it with a strong set of New York accents in mind (although Terry
comes from Boston via Baltimore; her accent, perfect for the play as it
was in performance, seems imperfect in view of her own history).
But if it helps to hear it with that accent in mind, it's not necessary to
do so: the play works anyway, on the page as well as in production. If you
grew up with any interest at all in the world of jazz, this is a play you
will love.
Words adequate to the peculiar joys of a book filled with
rich nuggets such as this one are difficult to come by:
Indeed, any words -- ranging from the adequate to those fit to
print -- about such a book are hard to come by. Even its publisher has
waffled with its title, presenting La Jolla marine biologist Ralph A.
Lewin's book as Merde: Excursions in Scientific, Historical, and
Sociocultural Coprology (New York: Random House, 1999). (One looks
forward expectantly to the title of the French translation.)
-- So Lewin begins, ending a few short paragraphs past Sir Thomas
Beecham and the critical donkey, in this book whose joys, however
peculiar, are also many. It's short. It's filled with interesting lore.
It's dryly humorous. And it taught me a good deal about a subject in which
I'd thought I was not especially interested. Food and sex get all the good
books, Lewin remarks (p. 149). Attempting to redress the balance, if only
a tiny bit, in the direction of excretion, he has performed a real public
service.
Some minor problems could easily have been fixed: for example,
identifying John Sparrow as "a contemporary British poet" (p. 139) seems
not entirely to get the sometime Master of All Souls' quite right; many
non-specialists will find the word "urticant" (p. 43) slightly obscure
(and Lewin uses numerous other words of similarly deep obscurity). But
these minor difficulties are incapable of diminishing in the slightest
one's pleasure in Lewin's odd little book. It will give you good cheer;
and you might want a copy or two for good friends, as well.
A bit of time in airports and on airplanes gave me a
chance to return to Literary Indiana this month -- in my reading, not
literally -- and I was able to read Charles Major's Dorothy Vernon
of Haddon Hall (New York: Macmillan, 1902). Late, and very
faux, Scott, this is a book I should not have liked at all. The
book is set in the 1560s, largely in Derbyshire. Its characters include
Queen Elizabeth, Mary, Queen of Scots, and William Cecil. Its leads are
two followers of Mary and the women they love, one of them headstrong,
tempestuous, and willful, the other meek, mild, and blind. Elements of the
plot come right out of Romeo and Juliet, and, not surprisingly,
many elements of Major's language come right out of the author of that
play. Its attitudes towards women are fascinating: the general badness of
their treatment by men, this viewed in the specific context of their
failure to have legal sovereignty over themselves, is one of Major's main
concerns in the book. Yet Major's portrayal of the headstrong and willful
member of the pair of women at his book's center seems designed to
question women's ability to exercise sovereignty over themselves. The
language is highfalutin'; the action ludicrous; the romanticism and
sentimentality regrettable.
I snapped it right up: it's interesting, it's fun, and it has some
moments -- particularly in showing the relationship of the narrator and
the blind woman whom he comes to love -- that (I blush to admit it) I
found deeply affecting. Great literature? Please. Fun? You betcha. Worth
forgetting about altogether -- as has essentially happened to this book? I
think not. Copies are probably pretty easy to find on the o.p. market for
considerably less than any new novel will cost you; and larger libraries
may have it floating around, as well. It's not like Uncle Tom Andy Bill or The Bears of Blue River, Major's
children's books about which I wrote some time ago. It isn't a
children's book; and, even granting that it's in a different form, it
might not be as good as they. I liked it anyway. Sorry.
I spent a good deal of time travelling this month.
Gadding about, from Virginia back to Pennsylvania, to England, on to the
Netherlands and to Belgium, back to England, on to Scotland, and finally
back home, did not leave me with a great deal of time for reading. One
book I can nonetheless recommend for its entertainment value -- it made,
in fact, a quite enjoyable travelling companion -- is Eric Garcia's
witty Anonymous Rex: A Detective Story (New York: Villard,
1999).
We are, it seems, all victims of an illusion: dinosaurs are not
extinct. They are, in fact, around us even now. Evolved -- or might I mean
"devolved"? -- for their own protection to a somewhat smaller size
than was once their ordinary wont, they dress most frequently in quite
nifty body suits. Wearing these, and, over them, ordinary clothing, they
can, with only minor discomforts, frequent the world of mammals and
operate in it. And, having learned English, they do. This tale is, in
fact, a private eye novel; its star, who has an office in LA, happens to
be a velociraptor in Sam Spade drag. The moment when, reading it, I fell
out of my uncomfy airplane seat was not due to pilot error but to my
passage through his encounter with a big LA mogul named Tannenbaum who, it
turns out, is a tyrannosaur. "Big" indeed!
The book is cheerful moronic fun -- interspecies sex is its main issue
and (as its dustwrapper reminds us) its long suit -- and yet it is well
worth a diversionary read. Unfortunately, it seems Garcia plans to make a
series of it. That feels to me -- admittedly in advance of any way in
which one could legitimately judge the results -- like a
brontosaurus-sized mistake. It's a good joke. Once.
About another series, however -- one that already
exists -- I feel very differently indeed.
The third of J. K. Rowlings's Harry Potter books, Harry
Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (London: Bloomsbury, 1999, and
now also New York: Scholastic, 1999) was one I picked up on my
travels. England's Bloomsbury still prints them on toilet paper; I
therefore (spendthrift Moi!) also bought, once I was back home, the more
substantial American (Scholastic) edition. So much for the physical book.
But about the book as a book, what can I, what need I, say?
Harry
Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, the second in the series,
seemed to me better than Harry
Potter and the Sorceror's Stone ( . . . and the Philosopher's
Stone in the U.K.), the first. This one seemed to me better than the
second. The plots are more or less standard English schoolboy tales; I
don't care. We know how they're going to end (Harry will win out); I don't
care. I may even suspect (and I do) that I know how the series will
end; I don't care -- except insofar as I'd like to be alive to check my
intuition when the final volume appears. These are well-written and
completely enjoyable books, and their reader is in on the birth of what
one feels quite confidently will prove to be a modern classic. Run, don't
walk, to the nearest copy -- but if you think it likely you're going to
want to live with these books for a while, make it an American copy.
For reasons that, no doubt, reflect the vagaries of
tastes, a friend recommended Veronica Stallwood's Oxford Blue
(London: Headline, 1998; paperback 1999). Oxford seemed the very place
to pick it up when I bumped into there; and so I did. And then I read it.
What a mistake.
Its heroine is one of those politely witty mystery-fictional English
women who solves small mysteries of stunning insignificance using nothing
but her stunningly uninteresting but all-too-decorous wits. Is it typical
of such heroines to find themselves in quaint villages, surrounded by
quaint village idiots and quaint village dangers? This heroine does,
although, as an added lagniappe, her rustication is encumbered by the
unwanted and unexpected arrival of her mother, whose lack of interest or
attractiveness parallels her own. In addition, dull quasi-young but
all-too-solidly vicarish men appear on her horizon. They do mind-numbingly
dull things together, while occasionally conversing wittily with mom or
doing battle with a recalcitrant automobile. Whatever insignificant
mystery has occupied the book's attention the heroine solves after a
moment of heart-stopping terror -- well, I think it was supposed to
be "heart-stopping"; and it almost awakened me from my reading
slumbers -- during which All Becomes Clear.
It must be possible to care about these people and the events in which
they become involved. I did not.
Far from it. In point of simple fact, I loathed this book.
My travel plans did not take me into London. Although I
was on airplanes that landed and took off from both Gatwick and Heathrow,
I had engagements in Oxford and St. Albans, and -- though tired neither of
London nor of life -- I disappointedly expected, this time, to miss the
city completely. I was therefore surprised and delighted when friends
unexpectedly dragged me into London anyway, on the one evening when it
proved possible, although just barely, to do so: I had left Edinburgh by
car that morning and they had been confident that, despite the distance, I
would arrive in time to make such a trip feasible. Amazingly, they guessed
right, although I would not have done so, knowing my inexperience at
driving on Scottish and English roads.
As a result, I got to see the long-running play by Yasmina Reza,
'Art' (London: Faber, 1996), at Wyndham's Theatre in Leicester
Square. I had wanted to see its New York production, but -- though I saw
several other plays in its immediate neighborhood -- I'd missed it. Since
the New York production turned out to close while I was away, it's a good
thing I got to see it in London for otherwise I'd have missed it
altogether.
The very next day, while also gazing seven miles or so down at the
Atlantic Ocean and watching other airplanes travelling alongside us on the
same highway on which we were all heading west together, I read the play;
and a very good read it is. 'Art' is a play, in fact, a
funny play. It is not a philosophical discourse. That granted, it
is, even so, a very shrewd and interesting look at the nature of modern
art and the varied relationships people have with it and with one another
about it. It is a play about perception. What do we see when
we look at a painting? Do we see what is there? And what might it
be that is "there"? or that we think is "there," when we see
whatever it is we see? It is also a play about language. How do we speak
with one another about what is, or what we think is, there? How do we
disagree with one another about what we see? And it is a play about the
varied and changing nature of human relationships, what we want, and what
we get, from them.
I thought it was a wonderful play to watch. And very nearly as
wonderful a play to read.
I had tried and failed to find a copy of Elena
Lappin's Foreign Brides in England, where it was first
published, and therefore had to wait till I was home before finding and
reading the American edition (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux,
1999). It was worth the wait. I picked up the book expecting to read a
story or two -- it's a book of short stories -- but, in the event, I
didn't put it down at all till I had finished all of them. These are tales
of varied exiles who find themselves trying to cope with their married
lives in a variety of different milieux, none of them anything like the
milieux in which they had grown up. They are funny and sad and confused,
and I simply loved them -- the exiles and their stories. In the
very first of the tales, a wife who feels that she has entered into a
marriage with an apparently orthodox Englishman who has misrepresented
himself to her starts to buy meat for his dinner not at the kosher butcher
she has always used but at a neighborhood butcher instead. Worse, she
starts to buy treyf from this butcher. Worse still, she starts to
interact with the butcher himself in new and surprising ways. Things work
out, although perhaps not in ways anyone would expect. Story after story
surprised me; I think they might surprise you, too.
In Edinburgh, I picked up a copy of Christian
Miller's A Childhood in Scotland, introduced by Dorothy Porter
(1981; rpt. Edinburgh: Canongate Classics, 1989, 1997). In this very
short book, once upon a time an article in The New Yorker, Miller
recalls her odd childhood in a highland castle as a member of a family
whose history in that place is traceable back through the high middle
ages. The book is beautifully told and thoroughly engaging: its evocation
of a place in which the past is still very much a living presence is, I
felt, remarkable. And indeed, given a rather different setting, almost
Faulknerian -- but then, like the American South, Scotland, too, has known
defeat and conquest at a near neighbor's hand.
I had known little about Scotland or the Scots before visiting
Edinburgh and the Scottish Borders. Miller's little book proved a nice way
to begin the process of learning a little more about both.
I followed Miller with another Scottish autobiography,
this one by a once well-known literary critic named David Daiches,
whose Two Lives: An Edinburgh Jewish Childhood and Promised Lands: A
Portrait of My Father, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: Canongate Classics,
1997), I also enjoyed. A kind of appendix to Two Lives,
Promised Lands seems to me a mistaken afterthought. It rehashes,
not badly or unpleasantly but, I think, unnecessarily, materials that
Daiches had already handled quite well in Two Lives, which
originally appeared in 1956. The younger Daiches of that year was perhaps
equipped with more writing powers than the very old Daiches of 1997, who
wrote the addition. In any event, Two Lives is what made this book
worthwhile for me.
My surprise at learning that there was any Jewish life in
Edinburgh seems to be a cliché -- and one that Daiches anticipates:
he notes that his American colleagues -- he taught at Chicago for several
years -- found the very idea humorous. True enough, I was surprised; but
its surprise quotient does not, by itself, recommend a book. I found
Daiches's evocation of Edinburgh life as much as of Jewish
Edinburgh life utterly fascinating. Miller's world is rural, Daiches's is
urban; hers exotic, his surprisingly familiar. The elements of exoticism
in Daiches's book -- for if it were completely familiar would I
have been interested in it at all? -- are dependent for me rather upon his
world's distance from me in time (he is writing about growing up in the
early 1920s through the years that grind to a halt in World War II) than
in geography.
Miller seems finally to have been estranged from the world of her
childhood; Daiches, in this book, reclaims the world of his. Read
alongside one another, as by chance I read them, both books -- quite
incommensurable though they may seem to be -- helped me to see "Scotland"
not as a tourist attraction, a theme park (which is the way its government
seems intent on presenting the place to its visitors, and with some
success), but as a real place with room for complicatedly different ways
of living and apprehending lives. I liked them both very much.
I had occasion this month to re-read Michael Frayn's
Copenhagen (London: Methuen Drama, 1998), a play I'd read and
written about earlier
this year. This fall, it was the book entering first-year students at
my university were to have read over the summer and be prepared to discuss
in sessions held before their classes began for the fall semester. A
participant in these sessions, I thought it might be prudent to re-read
the play for the occasion.
If I had liked the play when I first read it -- and I had, very much!
-- I found it even better this time around. A travelling companion saw it
performed in London just before I arrived (a production is allegedly
coming to New York in the spring of 2000), and had reported on its
strengths in production to me. Although I was somewhat annoyed by the
timing that prevented me from catching its London production, I was
fortunate enough -- at Penn, early in September, and as part of the
project for first-year students -- to see an abridged staged reading
performed by colleagues in the theater arts program. (They performed it
well, too.) My discussion notes for this play have wound up on the web;
suffice it here to say, simply enough, that it is about as good a play as
one could hope for, even if you wind up feeling -- as I do -- that
Frayn errs mightily on the side of Christian charity in his reading of
Werner Heisenberg.
In some ways it might be compared with Christian Miller's Childhood
in Scotland, a little autobiographical book I mentioned reading last
month. In its sense of a childhood lived, as it were, on the edge,
this comparison is not entirely far-fetched. Yet Hergesheimer's book is
infinitely more claustrophobic than Miller's ever dreams of being. Perhaps
this effect comes in part because its writer is far more intensely
enmeshed in what goes on inside his own head than she. Perhaps it also
comes, in other part, because, while Miller always firmly locates us in
the world, Hergesheimer does not bother to do so. I think the
childhood he describes takes place somewhere in or near Philadelphia; but
so un-tethered is it, so darkly mysterious the world in which it takes
place, that I am not certain of its location at all.
This is a tiny book, but one that, for its size, proves astonishingly
dispiriting. I am not quite sure what I make of that impression: am I, in
fact, recommending this book? It is mysterious, evocative, and suffused
with a sense of unhappy importance. Yet these are attributes not far
removed from portentousness and, in sober truth, I cannot quite
define clearly what it all portends. It is not a book that will keep me
from reading more Hergesheimer; on the other hand, it has not sent me out
in a wild rush to satisfy a new craving, either.
Another and even more unpleasant book -- but a
remarkably interesting one anyway -- is Peter Ackroyd's 1985
Hawksmoor. I read the novel in a 1993 Penguin reprint acquired
in York, but it has also been long available in the U.S. as a Harper
Perennial paperback.
The book concerns an architect mamed Dyer who works in Scotland Yard
under the direction of Sir John Vanbrugh (known to us as a playwright). He
designs churches and then supervises their construction as part of the
rebuilding of London in the wake of the Great Fire of 1666. Dyer's work
reflects both his now somewhat old-fashioned architectural training and
his preoccupation with various occult practices. (In a nice scene, he has
a great many objections to a demonstration of "new philosophies" presented
under Royal Society auspices: a world of rationality does not, he
discovers, appeal or convince.)
In the 1980s, a policeman named Hawksmoor finds himself investigating a
series of murders -- children; vagrants -- that take place in the vicinity
of these same churches. Dyer and Hawksmoor are both somehow out of
synchrony or sympathy with their environments and their colleagues. Both
men live in worlds that are dark and lonely. Their sense of isolation from
their fellows and of remote distance from the places as well as the people
with whom they work is great. Somehow, in ways Ackroyd never needs to make
entirely clear, their different eras interact. The horrors that Hawksmoor
must come to grips with and, if possible, resolve -- he is a
policeman, after all -- clearly derive from those in which Dyer's every
moment is spent. They define as well the very air the reader of this novel
breathes.
Hawksmoor is a kind of tour de force that compelled my
admiration. If I were to add that it compelled far more admiration, far
more respect, than pleasure, that might be accurate -- and yet I am glad I
read this difficult book. I'm also happy to recommend it to anyone who
might, all these years after its first appearance, be as innocent of its
peculiarities as I was.
My visit to Scotland prompted me to return to a writer
whom I last read while in Oxford in the mid-1970s. I don't remember much
about the book by him I then read -- I'm recalling the early nineteenth
century Scottish writer John Galt, whose Annals of the
Parish I had found at Blackwell's in the Oxford English Novels
edition by James Kinsley (1967, paperback) -- except for a moment very
early on when, writing about the year 1761, the author remarks, "Before
this year the drinking of tea was little known in the parish, . . . but
now it became very rife, yet the commoner sort did not like to let it be
known that they were taking to the new luxury" (p. 12). I remember being
stunned by the insight -- what can I say? to me, then, it was an
"insight" -- that "tea" and "England" had not always been
synonymous. (I'd not have distinguished "England" from "Scotland" then,
either.) Annals of the Parish is an enjoyable novel, and I found it
so even at that time. Yet I don't remember picking up another of Galt's
books until, late this summer -- prompted by my memory of that book and
the pleasure I'd taken in Scotland itself -- I went looking for them.
The first I found was a book called The Spae Wife: A Tale of the
Scottish Chronicles (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1823). This
triple-decker -- of which I can find no edition still in print -- used to
live in my library's open stacks but its most recent circulation, to me,
seems likely also to be its last. It has now moved to the more rarefied
precincts of the library's rare book collection. A few of the Galt
critics, at whom I have taken a brief look, assure me that it's no damned
good. This is a judgment that does not conduce to great confidence in the
wit of the small number of Galt critics out there. Or, to put it another
way, I actually enjoyed the book, although not quite as much as I had
enjoyed Annals of the Parish many years ago.
Wee Scott, The Spae Wife is a tale that seems designed to
reconcile its northern readers to the actualities of political union with
the crowd of rowdies south of the Tweed. Its method is simple. It tells a
tale about the Stuarts; and, brother! are they ever a bunch of
disasters on the hoof. Civil disorders and domestic broils follow their
lumbering and blundering trails as night the day.
With elements drawn from Shakespeare as well as from folklore and,
presumably, chronicle histories, Galt recreates a medieval world populated
largely by fools and jerks. Each is out for the main chance, wanting any
broader interests in the welfare of the Scots than his own accession to
their leadership would provide. The plot is set in motion by the
prophecies of a "spae wife," a single version, as it were, of the three
weird sisters whom Macbeth and Banquo come across at the opening of
Shakespeare's play. Local color, in much the same way as the romantic
Scottish scenery that Galt's critics seem to dislike, she keeps turning up
at various moments in the long course of the novel, and Galt almost always
portrays her as energetically in a prophetic mood. Other characters grow
old and, if they do not actually die, they at least shut up; but she seems
to go on forever, making a gaggle of Stuarts wroth.
Looking once again at Anthony Van Dyck's three views of James VI and I,
which I saw when I visited the Van Dyck anniversary exhibition in Antwerp
this summer, I was reminded of what utter toads these Stuarts must have
been. Van Dyck's James looks not only short but also nasty and brutish.
Galt's depiction of these early Stuarts, however, makes the post-Tudor
James look positively decent. How fortunate for us, the novel seems
to say, that now we have got rid of those Stuarts, bad then and much worse
in still living memory (and, by implication, how fortunate too that we
find ourselves instead in the hands of these simply marvelous
Hanoverians).
A fascinating book, The Spae Wife is worth another look --
if you can find a copy! (Someone ought to reprint it: Canongate, I
hope, is looking out for an editor, or perhaps someone is looking at it
for a Galt being produced at the University of Edinburgh.) Its politics
and its regionalism are both worth study. It's a better-written book than
the critics I looked at seemed to think. Most important, it's an enormous
amount of fun to read.
Even better, however -- though just as out-of-print -- is Rothelan:
A Romance of the English Histories (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd,
1824). This is another triple-decker (although volume three is filled
out by three unrelated stories called "The Quarantine; or, Tales of the
Lazaretto," stories told, after a fashion drawn from Boccaccio, by a group
of people isolated from their fellows by a plague-inspired quarantine).
Rothelan's geographical setting is not Scotland -- although some
scenes are in fact laid in the Scottish Borders -- but London. Like The
Spae Wife, however, its time is the middle ages.
Galt distinguishes this book through two of its central characters. One
is an Italian woman, the widow of an English lord. The other is a
money-lender of an Hebraic persuasion. In something of the manner of
George Walker, about whose Theodore Cyphon; or, The Benevolent Jew
(London 1796) I wrote some time ago,
Galt makes his nasty Jewish character a better human being than the
Christians -- starting with the Italian lady's late husband's quite
believably evil brother, whose object it seems to be to treat his
sister-in-law as if she were dirt. Scott, of course, had "done" Jews in
Ivanhoe. But Galt's (no doubt tributary) decision to include Jews
in Rothelan, and in fact his treatment of his Jewish character,
does not feel like "wee Scott" in the same way that The Spae Wife,
in its entirety, does.
It would be difficult to say enough in praise of this book. Not, I am
sure, a "great" book, Rothelan is nonetheless an extremely
enjoyable one. If I am right that The Spae Wife deserves another
outing in print, then Rothelan practically begs for one.
There is a market for books like this one, and rightly so. Someone needs
to think seriously about supplying that market.
Two articles in the post-Tina Brown
New Yorker drew my attention, both of them in the issue of
September 13.
Dava Sobel writes in the first about "The Heretic's
Daughter." This article concerns the relationship between Galileo and
one of his daughters, a nun, and is based on her surviving letters to him.
A short piece, it is excerpted from a larger book which has recently
appeared in bookstores but which I doubt I will get to in the near future.
Nonetheless, this little bit of it made the book seem worth a good long
look. While Sobel draws attention to a fascinating father-daughter
relationship -- particularly noteworthy, "fascinating" or not, given this
particular father -- she also attends to the life of a bright, energetic
woman who merits attention in her own right. Who knows what preconceptions
modern readers are likely to bring to consideration of a woman whose life
was led in a Renaissance Italian nunnery? I will simply say that, despite
the article's short scope, it surprised me; I suspect it capable of
surprising you, too.
In the second article that I found interesting in this same issue,
Betty Fussell writes about how her relationship with her former
husband, Paul Fussell, used travel as a means of forestalling needed
confrontations with deeper and more "systemic" issues in their marriage.
"Kitchen Wars" also looks at the food consumed during travel --
Fussell is a writer about food -- as an index to the state of psychic
health of those whom she and her husband dealt with, and, of course,
themselves. The piece is funny enough, and yet . . . and yet the author's
distance from these agonies is not quite great enough, even years
after the events she describes, for her reader not to feel a bit more
ensnared than any reader needs to feel by events not yet fit for public
consumption. Was I interested in them? Yes. But, though I did it, I didn't
like reading this stuff.
One of the people with whom I collaborated in a series of
sessions concerned with Michael Frayn's
Copenhagen is a physics professor at my university, Abraham
Klein. Among the post-Copenhagen pleasures I encountered as a
result of this collaboration, two were derived from his printed works.
In the first piece I read, Klein writes his "Recollections of Julian
Schwinger." This very short essay appears in Julian Schwinger:
The Physicist, the Teacher, and the Man, ed. Y. Jack Ng (Singapore:
World Scientific, 1996), pp. 1-7. Schwinger shared the 1965 Nobel
Prize for Physics with Richard Feynman and Sin-ichiro Tomonago for their
creation of quantum electrodynamics. Much more than Feynman, he was
something of a child prodigy. (Feynman, by contrast, seems to have been an
"adult prodigy."). Also much more than Feynman, he seems to have escaped
public attention. An earlier brief memoir, written for non-physicists,
appeared in The American Scholar (64:2 [Spring 1995],
241-246). Written by Klein's own student, Jeremy Bernstein,
"Julian 1918-1994" is a somewhat more formally "literary"
production than Klein's, but both have their charms. Given the
significance of their subject, both are worth reading.
Klein's own "Autobiographical Notes", though I read it after I
read his brief memoir of Schwinger, actually appeared a few years before
that memoir. It is the opening chapter in his own festschrift,
Symposium on Contemporary Physics: Celebrating the 65th Birthday of
Professor Abraham Klein, Drexel University, 31 October - 1 November
1991, ed. Michel Vallières and Da Hsuan Feng (Singapore: World
Scientific, 1993), pp. 3-60. Written for physicists, people who will
understand fully the nature and import of the projects Klein worked on,
this self-appraisal was in many respects beyond me; but I found it highly
enjoyable nonetheless. This essay represents a kind of work that most
folks I know who work in the historical humanities never encounter, a
scientific autobiography by a contemporary. Klein conveyed a good deal of
the flavor of a physicist's life in later twentieth-century America, and,
for me, that was worth the embarrassment of trying (and generally failing)
to work my way through passages I am not equipped to understand. Both of
Klein's essays may be directed at people with specialized tastes -- or, in
my case, pretentious ones -- but I am inclined to think that, if the
intellectual achievements of modern physics excite you, then they may also
be worth your attention, too.
In preparation for classes I am
teaching this fall, I had occasion this month to read in and about the
poetry of John Donne and the plays of William Shakespeare. I like both
writers very much indeed, you will be surprised to learn. That enthusiasm
to the contrary notwithstanding, however, I continue to labor under the
illusion that no one needs to hear my Deep Thoughts about either of them
in a venue such as this one.
The most recent book I finished this month was an
introductory work of history that I found simply fascinating from
beginning to end. Well written, concise, and interesting, Jonathan I.
Israel's European Jewry in the Age of Mercantilism 1550-1750, 2nd
ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989) surveys Jewish life in all of
Europe beginning (despite its title) with the expulsions from Spain and
Portugal at the end of the fifteenth century. The history of Europe's Jews
during this period is intrinsically interesting, and that interest is of
course the primary reason to bother with Israel's book at all. In
addition, however, he throws a raking light on the religious and
intellectual history of all Europeans during the period he writes
about; and the benefits of such a history have been made blindingly clear
to me this fall, when I have become a desultory attendee at a series of
seminars dealing largely with Christian-Jewish interrelationships during
the early modern period. Page after page proved provocative. Israel's
survey is a very good book.
A surprisingly busy fall semester has, since the end of September, kept
me from dutiful (let alone "inspired"!) maintenance of these
touts. Staring at my screen, with about three months' worth of desultory
reading to speak about, I feel just as blank as the screen looks.
I write these words in early January of "the future," that
is, the year 2000, which -- I admit it -- I find it nearly impossible to
think of as "now": as inhabited, so to speak, by me. It
is "the future"; and, really, I don’t live there.
(Or here. Wherever.) But I do. And since there seems to be no time like the future to get
caught up with the demands of the past, here goes . . . But perhaps I should add, before going further, that my teaching
continued to have me reading works this fall by Ben Jonson, George
Herbert, Andrew Marvell, John Milton, and William Shakespeare. I continue
to suspect that no one needs to hear me say: "I liked them." On the other hand, you could do worse.
Todd's hero is a Scotland Yard inspector named Ian Rutledge. His
career has been interrupted by long service on the western front. As a
residue of that service, Rutledge carries around with him an "inner
voice," a literal inner voice: that of a soldier named Hamish
who, alas, happened to find a bullet one sad day at the front. The bullet
came, deliberately, from military colleagues on his own side. In fact,
Rutledge, as commanding officer, had ordered Hamish to receive it as
exemplary punishment for his too public unwillingness to go over the top
when ordered. Just moments after the firing squad shot Hamish and Rutledge
had administered the coup de grace, however, a German shell landed
on the scene. It successfully blew almost all of the men to bits: the
reluctant (and now dead) soldier, the firing squad, and -- very nearly --
Rutledge himself. But Rutledge survives, if a bit unpleasantly, protected
from the continued shelling beneath Hamish's dead body. Or, more accurately, he has survived so very unpleasantly
that the experience has done his mental health very little good. Rutledge
exhibits classic symptoms of guilt, not only as a survivor but also as an
executioner. His equally classic post-traumatic stress disorder revolves
around the incident of Hamish's execution -- an unnecessary
execution, it seems, since the shell would have done the job without
Rutledge’s intervention. The post-war Rutledge has received an additional
hurt, and more cause for anger, from his pre-war fiancée. Finding
him in considerable mental disarray on his return from France, she
rejected him. These are the major (although not the only) explanations of
the stress that Rutledge feels as he returns to police work after the
war's end, wondering whether he has kept the skills that marked his work
before 1914. He wonders, too, if he can keep fit enough to avoid a return
to hospitalization for his mental disorders. In three novels, A Test of Wills (1996; rpt. New York:
Bantam, 1998), Wings of Fire (1997; rpt. New York: St. Martin’s
Press, 1998), and Search the Dark (New York: St. Martin’s
Press, 1999), Todd puts Rutledge through various paces. Some of the
difficulties he faces in each case derive not only from fear that the war
has blunted his skills but also, and worse, from the necessity to confront
other people whom the war has damaged nearly as badly as, or more badly
than, it damaged him. A dead poet whose war poetry was important to
Rutledge while he was at the front; a shell-shocked young man whose
pre-war promise will clearly never be realized; a wounded hotel worker:
the milieu in which Todd sets his characters is successfully (and grimly)
realized. That background infiltrates all aspects of Todd's post-war
England. It helps to make the crimes Rutledge investigates far more
complicated than they seem at first to be. These are, in short, good mysteries, firmly located in a
well-imagined time and place. They have their flaws. The casually
motiveless malignancy of Rutledge's bureaucratic nemesis in the Yard's
"home office," for example, goes almost entirely unexplained.
The novels do not deal all that well with the good bit of fancy
coincidence in the war-related nature of the cases Rutledge is assigned.
Hamish is simultaneously insufficiently explained, a bit too shadowy, and
too convenient a participant in the action. The angrily remembered
fiancée (like Hamish) seems a bit too pat. At the date these books
are set, I am unconvinced by Rutledge's reliance on automobile
transportation when he travels through southeastern England. Perhaps I
should credit Todd with better research on this point than any I have
done. Yet I would have been happier with a Scotland Yard inspector who
boards a train whenever he leaves 1919 London. Still and all, if you happen to be flying to Paris -- or anywhere
else where you’re going to have an opportunity to read but not much of a
chance to read seriously -- these are three enjoyable books. Given how
Todd proceeds to develop his milieu and his character, they are, it turns
out, worth reading in order.
Last month, I read a few books by a Scottish novelist
of the late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-centuries, John
Galt. This month, I read, not one of his historical novels, like
The Spae Wife or Rothelan, but a realistic (or satirical)
tale set just shy of Galt's own time, The Provost
(1822). This is a deliciously nasty book. Its hero, a smugly self-satisfied
crook, finds salvation, more or less, in the joys of public service. One
feels completely confident about his prospects, were he not both fictional
and dead (either fictional or dead might not have been as
debilitating a problem), in this year’s upcoming primaries, all of which
he would have graced marvelously.
I read the book in Ian A. Gordon's edition for Oxford's
World’s Classics (1982; it was published originally as an Oxford
English Novel in 1973). As a primer of politics on the local
level, The Provost deserves to be read alongside, perhaps even
kept alongside, William L. Riordan's Plunkitt of Tammany
Hall, the saga of George Washington Plunkitt (the inventor of
"honest graft") and a book whose immortal virtues need (like those of
Donne or Shakespeare) no boost from me.
Murdoch is someone whose novels I have long admired -- although
"admired" might actually be a more strictly accurate word here
than, say, "enjoyed." I've never felt any need to go back and
reread them (although many years ago I did actually teach Bruno's
Dream, and I also have a soft spot for The Bell). In
truth, I've not yet even caught up with the last five or six of them. No
doubt I should: Bayley's memoirs remind me of that desideratum. And no
doubt I will. Of his own two volumes, one is wonderful -- Elegy for Iris,
the first. But the second, Iris and Her Friends, seemed to me,
alas, almost completely unnecessary. Murdoch's personality, still present
despite disease, and Bayley's sense of the love that binds each party to
the other, are both pervasive in the Elegy. The book gives its
readers a feel for the world (Oxford) in which Bayley and Murdoch lived.
It recalls that place over a period of decades, from the late forties
through the eighties and nineties, and, recalling the place over a fairly
long span of time, offers a brief introduction to academic manners and
mores during a period of rapid change. It presents a cast of characters
whom numbers of readers will know about (or know). A remorseless chronicle
of the onset and progress of Murdoch's disease, and at the same time a
reminder that disease need not define us or our relationships, the book is
also, finally, a testament to -- although these words seem completely
inadequate here -- the power of love. Iris and Her Friends, by sorry contrast, seems a testament
to the Non-Power of Sequels. It falls victim to every sin by which sequels
are conventionally beset. True, I finished it. But I’ve tried hard to
forget everything about it, especially since, having read it far
too soon after having read the Elegy, I discovered that its treacly
spirit seemed capable of throwing a harsh (and unmerited) retrospective
light on the Elegy. One wonders if Bayley was so unsettled by his
grief after Murdoch's death that he neither controlled nor realized what
he was doing in this bad book.
An article in the July 1999 Atlantic
Monthly by Stephen
Budiansky, "The Truth About Dogs," deals with several
matters that concern dogs: their domestication; the nature of their
relationships with human beings; their overbreeding. A confirmed cat
person, I ought to have found these matters of no interest whatsoever.
Unfortunately, I suppose, one dog did manage to enter my life. Although
he died of metastatic lung cancer on New Year's Eve of 1998, I have not
yet been able completely to exorcise his presence. (Even the cats, four
natives and two frequent visitors alike, seem still to miss him.) Dogs
require high maintenance; I am not sure I can cope with another. But
Budiansky's wonderful article made me think again about just how weird it
is to have one floating about the house (if one hundred and twenty pounds
of dog can be said to "float"!) And how lovely.
Another toothsome morsel from the wonderful world
of recent periodicals appeared in the November 4, 1999 issue of
The New York Review of Books: "Andrew
Delbanco's "The Decline and Fall of Literature." "Ou
sont les neiges d'antan?" Delbanco asks; and finds them all melted in
the overheated atmosphere of global literary warming.
Delbanco appropriates to himself the air of a commonsensical
Appreciator of the Glories of Lit. The stance confers the grace due a
beleaguered minority upon him. Far from anything resembling a minority,
however, he is in absolute harmony with dominant trends in Kontemporary
Kulchooral Authority. His essay offers a deeply conservative, perhaps even
paleolithic, view of what has happened to Literature during the past three
decades or so. It develops from a "review" of several recent books about
the decay of literary study, most especially the impassioned but
reactionary views espoused in a series of dyspeptic books by Alvin
Kernan, including In Plato's Cave. I have watched with pleasure
as The Auld Farts on several listserves I scan respond to Delbanco with
warmth (and, now and again, a very nearly human intelligence).
Their response is not surprising. He has assumed not only the stance of
the beleaguered minority but also the mantle -- it cloaks him in Wisdom --
of the aged critic. Spiritually, he has turned himself not into their heir
but rather their peer. In absolute fairness, his essay is not really . . . well,
stupid. It is merely wrong.
Thinking now about this magnificent book, I hardly know how to make
you run to read it -- as you should! -- while simultaneously saying
as little as possible about it so as to stay out of its way. Garner looks
at some of the ways rural people lived, and (perhaps) continue to live, in
England, specifically Cheshire, over the past century and a half. The
book's language may occasionally be odd to American ears. Its issues will
not always be clear to modern sensibilities, whether American or English.
No matter. Extremely spare, The Stone Book Quartet wastes no words
in telling its four separate-yet-joined stories. You will read them with
growing conviction as you come to savor this simply gorgeous book. Then
you will reread them almost immediately. And then you will start giving copies away to friends.
I picked up, and almost immediately read, a copy of
another English writer's work, this Michael Frayn's very funny
play, Balmoral (London: Methuen, 1987). It is a tale
of Soviet Britain in the 1930s. The famous castle has been turned over for
use as a writer's resort. To it comes a visiting journalist from the
capitalist east (Russia), hoping to catch a glimpse of "real
life" in the world Marx and the British comrades have made.
He fails, of course.
Somewhat less happily, I also read Frayn's recent novel,
Headlong (New York: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt, 1999).
This book has been shortlisted for the Booker. Now up for a Whitbread, it
has received very nearly universal praise. The arbiter of Literary Taste,
The Newspaper of Record, included it, in its December Round-Up of All That
Matters, as one of its Hot Picks for 1999, which must mean
something. So you will understand that my opinion -- which is that the
book is drivel -- is a distinctly minority view. I remember once hearing someone -- perhaps Tom Stoppard (?) --
explain to a group of students that, when he set out to be a writer, drama
was Where It Was At. And so it was to drama, he added, that he turned.
Frayn is also a dramatist. As in Copenhagen,
he is a very good one on occasion. Yet ours is no longer a time that
valorizes theater. Hence -- perhaps looking to make amends -- people have
seized upon this novel as if it were a heaven-sent opportunity to honor
someone who, alas, writes, yuck, plays, which goodness knows no one
could possibly take seriously, but who here has, thank God, written a
real book. Wrong wrong wrong. It isn't a real book. The opportunity wasn't
heaven-sent. The honors are misplaced. A philosopher married to an art historian has begun to write about
art himself. But when he stumbles on a missing painting from Bruegel's
cycle of The Seasons, he turns out to be a greedy and predacious
bastard, just like the rest of us. Presumably this is all very amusing,
and, of course, it is also Deeply Insightful about academicians'’
hypocrisies to boot. The rustic boobs who own the Bruegel, incidentally,
fare no better at Frayn's wittily satirical hand. Better suited, perhaps,
to the world of Cold Comfort Farm, they, too, are as perfectly
disgusting as the academics. Frayn's Deep Insights cut in many directions.
Not a difficult trick if you don't like your characters. Frayn
doesn't. I suppose that people who like this kind of book will like this
kind of book. I didn't. I don't know people who behave this way, even
though I am not a Pollyanna-ish fan of the genus academicus
with whom I live my professional and personal life. I simply didn't
believe in either Frayn's characters or their milieu for a single moment.
Moreover, the book felt so completely plotted that it sseemed to me
utterly lifeless.
By contrast, I like Frayn's plays a lot: they may be written in a
disgustingly disreputable form, but they are not
"lifeless." -- even when all they are is farce (as in
Noises Off). On the other hand, however, I have yet to read a novel
by Frayn that works. The high praise Headlong has received is
undeserved. It is just one more bad Frayn novel.
Quite a few years ago, I read a "comic-book
novel" by an English artist and writer named Raymond Briggs.
Called When the Wind Blows (and published in the United
States by Schocken, 1982), this is a deeply chilly little book
about World War III. (Chilly it may be, but it is also so good
that, writing about it here, I paused in midstream to reread it.)
An elderly couple in the English countryside, using the guidance they
find from a couple of civil defense booklets obtained from a public
library, set about building a shelter and laying in a supply of food. They
then set out to survive what looks likely to be -- and, indeed, soon is --
a little nuclear exchange between the Russians (or is it the Germans? they
never can quite keep their wars straight) and the West. Trustingly
confident of the ability of The Powers That Be to manage the situation,
and quite certain that little England will once again pull through (it did
the last time, after all), the couple keep their illusions intact all the
way through to the end of the book. At its end, however, they themselves
are not intact. Briggs does not even bother to kill them off. His reader
ought, perhaps, to notice that such an ending might have been more
merciful than the ending the book actually reaches. When the Wind Blows is profoundly painful. Moreover, its
comic book form is completely essential to its success. Art
Spiegelmann's Maus is the only work I know that is even
remotely like it; but, where Spiegelmann remembers horror, Briggs
anticipates it. Now Briggs has published another comic book, this one called
Ethel and Ernest (New York: Knopf, 1999). The story of
Briggs's parents -- they bear, not surprisingly, a very strong
resemblance to the couple who encounter nuclear warfare in England's green
and pleasant land in the earlier book -- this is a novel about aspiration,
achievement, social change, and its costs. It is, in its way, as good an
introduction to twentieth-century English social history as anything I
have ever read -- or so, at any rate, I thought, as an admitted foreigner
to the world Briggs depicts.
I read the book at a sitting in a bookstore. Now I have been given a
copy as a Christmas present. I didn’t need it. But it is such a wonderful
book that I am, in fact, very happy to have it.
Born in Ireland, raised in England, and now resident in the United
States, Cohn has written a book that takes him, guided largely by a
companion and tour guide from Ireland, through a large chunk of England
that tourists like me never get to see. The people he meets, not the
scenes he sees, are Cohn's focus: people who have been left behind --
sometimes untouched, more frequently damaged -- by the Thatcher years of
blessed memory. Untouched or damaged, they are all located somewhere or
other on a mad, or a poverty-stricken, or some other outskirt fringe of
the "normal" world that is all the ordinary tourist -- or native
-- gets to see. If Allen Ginsberg had been English, not American, and if
he had written prose rather than "Howl," he might have written
Yes We Have No; Carl Solomon would be at home in this book. But
Ginsberg could have done it no better than Cohn has done. So good, and in
so many different ways, this is a book that you will read passages of
aloud to innocent bystanders. And they will thank you.
It turns out that this book is one in a series of detective novels
that, like Todd's, instructed me in the existence of a genre I'd not known
about, although I have encountered it previously without knowing I was
doing so: the "historical mystery." Todd uses post-World War I
England as his historical setting. Janes sets his series in Occupied
France. Philip Kerr, who has written three mysteries I read and
enjoyed some years ago, set his books in pre-World War II Berlin:
March Violets, The Pale Criminal, and A German
Requiem are all available from Penguin as Berlin
Noir (1994)). He is obviously another practitioner in this genre,
though I'd not known that when I read them. Janes further complicates matters by creating as his
"hero" not one but two detectives. One comes from the
Sureté, the other from the Gestapo. Their unlikely partnership
works, in part, because the man from the Gestapo is not
"political": he's just a cop doing a dirty job.
Well, yeah.
In this novel, the job takes them to Lyon. A fairly large crowd of
folks has been burned to death in a fire. An arsonist seems to be loose in
town. Amongst the candidates for arsonist du jour, several have
ties to a slew of unsavory German characters who, unlike the Gestapo dick,
are political. Janes allows us to ogle our Nazis from the odd
perspective of a criminal investigation that never looks at what
really made his folks criminal. It's a good mystery and a decent read. But
it is not an endearing book.
It helps if you like books.
The plot of The Innocents Within involves an American pilot
who is shot down by Germans during World War II. He crash lands on the
outskirts of a village where the local Protestant pastor has organized his
parishioners to take in Jews who have fled the Nazis and their French
collaborators. The pilot survives his crash, though he needs care. A young
Jewish woman who lives in the pastor’s own household cares for him . . .
and (what a surprise!) falls in love with him. Here’s another surprise: he
falls in love with her, too. A number of events, including the crash of
the American's plane but also the need to fill all those waiting cattle
cars with Jews, bring Nazis and French policemen nosing around. Bad Things
happen. The love plot is Daley's excuse. The novel is "about" the
village and its pastor. Others have written about both, although as
"history," not -- so far as I know -- as "fiction." I
found Daley's book enjoyable and moving. It is a lovely read; I am bemused
by the inattention it has received. It deserves much more, much better,
from readers, whatever reviewers may have thought (or not thought) about
it.
Two voices dominate. One is that of an RAF pilot officer. Wounded
in Europe before the evacuation from Dunkirk (the novel is set, its title
reminds us, after Dunkirk), he had been returned to England and
hospitalization following that retreat. Now back on active duty, he trains
and then leads into combat a fighter squadron during the early days of the
Battle of Britain. He also falls in love with a widowed signals officer at
his air base. The other (secondary) voice is that of a pilot who, not an officer, has
the rank of sergeant. He is thus an anomaly in an air force where pilots
are supposed to be officers. In fact, his entire unit consists of sergeant
pilots, thanks (I assume) to the efficacy of the Luftwaffe in killing
British pilots of appropriate rank, and the need for more of them anyway,
even more of them who are not "gentle." His squadron is
led by the pilot officer who is the novel's main voice. Both of these voices are far from ordinary. The tales they tell are
not told in a straightforward fashion. And the word I used above --
"odd" -- doesn't tell you the half of it. I recommend this book
unreservedly. First, how the author uses the voices she creates offers her
readers a crash course in technique. Second, the author has done something
else that is, quite simply, astonishing. A person to whom I gave a copy of
the book remarked that the characters don't feel like RAF pilots.
He's absolutely right. They don't. We all probably have more or less
similarly clichéd ideas about what "RAF pilots"
must have been like. McGraw's pilots don't resemble the
clichés at all. They don't because they're children. And she's right. It's our clichés that are wrong. This is a book I found painful to read. And compelling. And worth
the pain. Where McGraw learned what went into this book is something I
would love to know. She is a Czech immigrant. English is not her first
language (but you won’t guess that from reading her astonishing prose). In
addition, she is simply too young for World War II, which she must have --
how unfashionable! -- imagined. This is her first book. No fair
on all counts, you want to say; but she's too good to be upset by.
Hold your breath for her next book. It can't come a moment too soon.
Lukacs is concerned with the early days of Churchill as wartime
Prime Minister. The War is going badly. Germany has not quite overrun the
Continent, but it is about to. The Dunkirk evacuation is but a few days in
the future. No one imagines the possibilitys that as many troops will be
successfully evacuated as eventually were. France has not yet fallen but
it is about to. The Soviet Union is allied with Germany and the German
invasion is more than a year off in the as-yet-unforeseeable future. The
United States is still neutral, Roosevelt and Churchill still strangers to
one another. Roosevelt has not yet succeeded in preparing America for the
likelihood that it will once more need to enter a European war. Up for
re-election, and to an unprecedented third term, he is not anxious to
sound any war tocsins. He has no reason to trust Churchill's leadership
capabilities. And yet, during these very dark days, Churchill reaches a decision
-- and persuades his own government, which also doesn’t yet trust
him, to go along with it -- to accept no negotiated peace with Hitler. The
burden of Lukacs'’ book is to detail how Churchill came to that decision,
how he managed to implement it, and what its significance was (and
is). There is an element, not always repressed, of hero worship in this
book. For a reader like me, deeply mistrustful of much that he thinks
Churchill represents, that hero worship is unwelcome. It is a measure of
the success with which Lukacs argues his case that I left the book deeply
suspicious that he might be right.
People who have not read Treasure
Island are "savages," the mother of a friend of mine is
said to have remarked; and I am therefore happy to be able to report that
I have read it. Savagely enough nonetheless, however, I have to confess
that I read it only during the decade of the 1980s. Robert Louis
Stevenson was an author whom, as a child and even through much of my
adulthood, I knew I could safely ignore. Ever so slowly, I have been
catching up.
Last month, I finally got around to The Black Arrow: A Tale of
the Two Roses (1888; rpt. London: Cassell, 1919 -- but many editions
are in print). Stevenson is no Shakespeare, no Milton, no Donne --
but, even so, no one needs to hear me say "I liked it" about
this book any more than about theirs. But I did.
A few peculiarities deserve at least remark. This book illustrates a
very curious attitude to gender. That attitude cannot arise simply from
Stevenson's use of a pseudo-Shakespearian convention (put your actors into
a dress and no one will notice that they are boys or men; put an actor
wsearing a dress into male disguise and everyone will continue to see him
as a "she"). What does this attitude to gender come from? In
addition, the book's cavalier attitude to the death of several of its
characters seems jes' a mite severe.
Stevenson continues to grow on me; his books even raise some
interesting questions. A very enjoyable book.
The first novel by Madeleine B. Robins is
called The Stone War (New York: Tor, 1999). It is very good.
Robins establishes her setting in a not-too-distant-in-the-future New York
City. In her world, tendencies to violence already visible today have been
grotesquely exaggerated. Two examples only: apartment buildings have
become armed and defended by multitudes of private police; crossing the
street may take you through police checkpoints.
Robins follows her setting of the scene rapidly with a disaster that
brings the City down. Much of lower Manhattan lies under water. The World
Trade Center buildings topple over at street level. The FDR is twisted and
curled in on itself, partly in and partly out of the East River. Bridges
into Manhattan are impassable. Of the very few survivors -- many people
have died; others have fled -- some have been transformed, literally, into
monsters. One person -- and only one person -- has bucked the outflowing tide
of fleeing refugees. He has got himself back into New York after
the disaster in hopes of rescuing his divorced wife and two sons, who live
with her. He eventually establishes a kind of "fort" where
surviving people, a very few of them monstrously deformed physically but
not therefore monsters, wage a battle for survival and civility against
those whose monstrousness is revealed both by their looks and by their
actions. He and the party who have assembled around him are successful in
this fight. Nonetheless, they remain cut off from the rest of the world.
No one enters New York: not to offer succor; not even to investigate.
Gradually, it becomes clear that whatever the cause of the disaster, it
remains to be dealt with. But first it must be discovered. Robins' book elaborates a specific kind of science-fiction tale. It
is a tale that was told several times in the‘40s and ‘50s. (To cite
Robins' precedents here, unfortunately, would also be to reveal too much
of her plot.) Suffice it to say that the novel quite satisfactorily
develops in imaginative ways possibilities in this mini-"genre"
that Robins's predecessors (most of whom I know only in short story
formats) left unexplored.
I do think that Robins may imagine that The Stone War is somehow
a love song to New York. It struck me to the contrary as a book the major
flaw of which is that it loathes the City it thinks it likes. (The
book is almost a textbook on deconstruction waiting to be written.)
That's obviously not my favorite thing about the book; but I read it --
and enjoyed it -- anyway.
A very useful brief introduction to the
practices of modern book history is provided in an exceptionally readable
new book by Brian Richardson, Printing, Writers and Readers in
Renaissance Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999 --
printed in simultaneous hardbound and paperback editions). The impact
of the printing press on the practices of bookmaking, writing, and reading
is a "hot topic" in various scholarly communities these days. It
is also my topic, both as a teacher of courses on the history of
books and printing and as a librarian who works with older books.
Richardson concentrates not on the Germanies, where printing in the
west originated and over and from which the new technique first spread to
the rest of western and southern Europe. He concentrates instead on the
various states of the Italian peninsula, which quickly became a major
printing locus (especially Venice). This narrow Italian focus does not
preclude his raising and treating intelligently many issues relevant to
the early days of printing throughout Europe. Nor does it preclude his
bringing in evidence from Germany, France, or England whenever information
about such non-Italian practices might be helpful to his readers.
This is a book that begs to be used as a text. If you are merely
curious about the new book history, course or no course, it is a very good
place to look. Richardson's book introduces his specifically Italian
subject very well indeed. He has at the same time also produced a book
that offers a synthesizing view of the entire field. It is easy to read.
It is worth reading. Return to Traister's non-current touts (beginning with August 1995, when this home page was
begun).
1999 INDEX: 1998 2000
Return to Traister's current touts.
You can
send Traister e-mail concerning this page at
traister@pobox.upenn.edu
To cite
Karl Popper . . . : "We intellectuals have done terrible things, we pose a
great threat. Not only are we arrogant, but we can be bought."
[ADDENDUM, 13 February 2000: An article by
Peter Schneider in today's New York Times Magazine is also worth
reading: "Saving
Konrad Latte" deals with Germans who protected Jews in Germany during
the Holocaust. It is exceptionally
interesting.]
I do not understand your insistence on my
remembrance. . . . I am angry at your demand that I continue to probe.
Were you not there in all your dark glory? Have you no conception of the
horror? Did it not touch you at all? A passion for horror disgusts me. I
have seen horror. There is nothing to tell you. I am not your military
historian. Do not turn me into an example. There are sufficient records,
consult them. You are the creator, invent such details as suit your
purpose best. Those willing to talk to you of that day, to remember for
your sake, to forgive you, they invent as freely as they wish. I am not
one of them. I will not talk. I will not listen to you. Invention gives
that slaughter shape. That scale of horror has no shape, as you in your
darkness have no shape save what you bestow upon those you leave behind.
Your actions that day were not, they are not acceptable. You have no right
to excuse that suffering, parading it for the benefit of
others.
February 1999
March 1999
At the end of April, the Penn Reading Program
chose Copenhagen as the summer reading for incoming members of the
Class of 2003. Details of the program, supplementary materials, and
whatever else committees gather for such programs, are still in process of
development, but it will all be found here as it is chosen and
added.
April 1999
. . . which I happened upon in June:
Berners's Wedding Bouquet, March, and Luna Beach performed
by the RTE Chamber Choir and Sinfonietta, directed by Kenneth Alwyn (Marco
Polo 8.223716). It's enjoyable music. But I need to hear it more than, as
of this writing -- 2 June 1999 -- I've yet managed to do in order to have
any feel for its long-term staying power.
May 1999
I write out words, word by word, word by word, words that
pull other words out after them, words that come back with things from
inside me which I didn't know were there, and that makes more words and
still more. To kill time. . . . In order that our life wear away into
dust. And when it's over, if it ever will be, so many months, so many
hours will all amount to nothing more than an impalpable dust.
. . . when you're living through this calamity we've got
here everything becomes clear. Everything they've kept hidden from us.
They led us to believe in words, in museums, in refrigerators, in the
rights of man. And the truth is the humiliating of man, man not mattering
one bit.
To get a full sense of what has befallen us [Hyvernaud
writes,] there is nothing to match squatting butt to butt in the
latrines. That's what they have turned us into. And we imagined we had a
soul, or something close to it. We . . . consider[ed] ourselves superior
to monkeys and heads of lettuce. We do not have a soul. We just have
intestines. We fill up as best we can, and then we go empty ourselves out.
That's the whole of our existence.
June 1999
July 1999
There is a story about a donkey that, led onstage perhaps
to represent the rustic cavalry in a production of Mascagni's opera
Cavalleria Rusticana, defecated on the proscenium. The eminent
conductor, Sir Thomas Beecham, stopped the performance at this point by
tapping on the rostrum; he then turned to the audience and announced,
"Ladies and gentlemen, a moment's reverent silence, please. We are in the
presence of a superior being: a critic."
The word "science," meaning knowledge, and the word "shit,"
from the Old English scitan, both apparently derive from the same
Indo-European root, as does the Greek word from which scatology is
derived.
August 1999
September 1999
October, November, December 1999
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December