Sunday, June 24, 2012

Where are all the lesbians?

I'm writing this at Snack Bar, a SoCo restaurant for the vehicularly starved: you watch automobiles, a great many of them, trundle past in their lazily Texan way, fake hubcaps determinedly revolving around an axis on which ego, brawn, and parental disaffection are distributed in equal measure.  You could come here at 8:45 pm, oblivious to the lateness of the time or the appropriateness of your sartorial state, seeking only to get "some work done".  Does that hostess make eyes at you, or is it just part of her job description?  "Did you want to get one more before we close?" "Sure, why not?" But the true achievement of this bar-restaurant hybrid is its rather liberal sensibility, in which sprays of red- and blue-ly lit water replace ceiling fans, in which the twenty-eight year-olds still get carded, if obsequiously so.  "Are you over 21," the waitress states, knowing full well that you are, knowing full well that you are obliged, required, to respond: "Wow! No one has carded me in two years," to which she replies with an incoherent sentence that includes the word "doll" in it.  "Love" would be more British, less personal. She knows this.

Included in this sensibility is a tolerance towards the gaily gay, the cheerfully left-behind.  Here we find a couple making out, only on closer examination one of them has pigtails, the other breasts. Is this the purgatory of the homosexually alienated?  They are in fact both of the same, indeterminate sex.  The man or woman with breasts has a set of biceps that would put a certain Ripudaman Manchanda to shame, and yet the girl/boy with pigtails is only, or at most, eighteen. Did he/she get carded? More importantly, does he/she go to UT?  Surely he/she's part of the liberal arts Plan 2, if at all.

My question, rather inconsequential: Where are these people when you're ready to observe them? When  your PhD is not, as it is now, nearly, but perilously, complete?  When your nights do not involve breathless exchanges with your advisor? If the University of Texas at Austin starves you of anything, it is the full view of lesbians, or gay people, unashamedly necking, in full view of the buff inhabitants of Gregory Gym, insensible, alarmed, at one, about to miss their Bikram Yoga Informal Class.

Hell, I'd pay to see them hold hands. In a city---town? university town?---that paper-cuts the boundary between conservative and self-consciously liberal, it may often seem as though there is no middle ground.  The gay straddle this ground without needing to; without desiring to. They are in fact the last bastion of sincerity that remains in this riven not-yet city-but-not-quite-town, not just because they want to be: because they are compelled, by the Rominees, to be. 

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Well done, Sean Carroll

Note the subtle change in prose rhythm between the  exclamatory captions and the often declaratory sentences that follow. For instance: "You are  a gluon! In one of eight colorful hues."  Since GR, I've had a sneaky feeling that Sean Carroll was all kinds of awesome; this confirms it.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Ninety thousand eight hundred and eight reasons to universalize healthcare

 Date of Visit   Provider     Total Charges
2/9/12    ST DAVIDS HLTHCARE PARTNERSHIP $76.00
2/9/12 HARRIS S ROSE MD PLLC $199.00
2/9/12 CLINICAL PATHOLOGY LABORATORIES $134.50
11/17/11 SELECT PHYSICAL THERAPY HOLDINGS $235.00
11/11/11 SELECT PHYSICAL THERAPY HOLDINGS $285.00
11/7/11 SELECT PHYSICAL THERAPY HOLDINGS $230.00
11/4/11 SELECT PHYSICAL THERAPY HOLDINGS $254.00
10/31/11 SELECT PHYSICAL THERAPY HOLDINGS $180.00
10/26/11 SELECT PHYSICAL THERAPY HOLDINGS $180.00
10/21/11 SELECT PHYSICAL THERAPY HOLDINGS $235.00
10/17/11 SELECT PHYSICAL THERAPY HOLDINGS $189.00
10/14/11 UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN $35.00
10/11/11 UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN $10.00
10/10/11 SELECT PHYSICAL THERAPY HOLDINGS $235.00
10/7/11 SELECT PHYSICAL THERAPY HOLDINGS $275.00
9/28/11 ST DAVIDS HLTHCARE PARTNERSHIP $76.00
9/28/11 AUSTIN RADIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION $32.00
8/24/11 ST DAVIDS HLTHCARE PARTNERSHIP $76.00
8/24/11 AUSTIN RADIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION $32.00
8/15/11 A M HOME DIAGNOSTICS INC $45.00
8/15/11 CTMF INC $199.00
8/14/11 AUSTIN RADIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION $32.00
8/14/11 CAPITOL ANESTHESIOLOGY ASSN $1,343.30
8/14/11 CTMF INC $200.00
8/13/11 AUSTIN RADIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION $137.50
8/13/11 AUSTIN RADIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION $37.00
8/13/11 AUSTIN RADIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION $137.50
8/13/11 AUSTIN RADIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION $32.00
8/13/11 AUSTIN RADIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION $32.00
8/13/11 AUSTIN RADIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION $32.00
8/13/11 AUSTIN RADIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION $137.50
8/13/11 SETON HEALTHCARE $74,678.00
8/13/11 HARRIS S ROSE MD PLLC $4,277.00
8/13/11 SETON HEALTHCARE $897.00
8/13/11 AUSTIN PATHOLOGY ASSOCIATES $182.35
8/13/11 AUSTIN RADIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION $41.00
8/13/11 AUSTIN RADIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION $357.50
8/13/11 AUSTIN RADIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION $130.00
8/13/11 CTMF INC $539.00
8/13/11 B & M AMBULANCE SERVICE INC $4,373.33
Total  $90,808.48



An email excerpt (but one I didn't want to lose)

To my brother, or more generally, to anyone who has not yet met his first Darin:


My point in the previous email was to ask you for specificities.  Could you give me an example of a specific sentence, paragraph, passage, or piece of dialogue that suffers from a lack of nuance, i.e., that does not "mirror the inherent contradictions and ambivalence in [our thoughts]"?   This may be harder than you think.

"Darin got on the bus."
By most measures, this is is an innocuous, workmanlike sentence, with a single subject and object, and nothing else.  But it conceals a great deal.  For instance, the proper noun "Darin" brings up different images in different readers. To you, who are possibly yet to meet your first Darin, fictional (Darin isn't a very common a name in novels) or real, it is a placeholder for a person with no attributes. I hazard that the image in your head is one of a vaguely Caucasian man, perhaps long-nosed, a briefcase in his right hand, and wearing a tie.  For me, on the other hand, who knows two real people and one author named "Darin", a Darin-image is necessarily more amalgamated.  I see a man long of hair, flat of face, his stay-at-home t-shirt still stained with the cat droppings he tried to clean up in the afternoon.   We have already diverged in our interpretations of this sentence, and we haven't even gotten to the word "bus" (to which a similar hermeneutic treatment can be applied) yet.
All this may seem obvious to you.  In fact, you may claim that this is exactly the opposite of what you had in mind.  You may say: the shortest passages are the most ambiguous, and the longer a passage, and its accompanying description, the easier, and thus less rewarding, it is to imagine the object of the description.  But this is a specious argument.  A long passage is not inherently easier to place than a shorter one.  
"He wore ill-fitting clothes.  He had on a fake gold watch.  His lips wore a brownish hue, as though recently parted by a cigarette.  His face was mottled, it was obvious, by a recent accident.  He was missing his front teeth. Out of his pocket stuck a damp-deformed carton of Colgate Total.  His maroon gumboots were soaked through."
This, by any standards, is a bit of an itemization.  You may claim it belongs to the category of descriptions that leave little to the imagination.  But surely there is enough here to imagine!  As in the Darin example, each noun introduces shades of meaning, introduces images, that depend on the reader that apprehends them.  More importantly, the person being described here, unlike Darin, can be placed in a certain stratum of society---the man of few means---and this fact is itself enough to propel it beyond any accusations of dutiful thoroughness.   
Given, then, that there is always a great deal to imagine, that a passage always introduces more possibilities than it closes off, the question is not: Does a passage leave much or little to the imagination? but rather: What does this passage leave to the imagination? Different schools of fiction (I assume here that we're talking about fiction;  non-fiction is a whole other ballgame) answer this question in different ways.   The minimalists would stick to the Darin-like  sentences, which they seem to admire a great deal.  
"He looked very dead.  It was raining. I liked him as well as anyone I ever knew." (A Farewell to Arms, Ernest Hemingway)
The point of this kind of writing, apart from "the mere ratification of male taciturnity" it embodies, is to hint at a world just beneath the fictional surface, one pierced only at critical junctures by the fiction itself.   In theory, they leave a lot to the imagination. In practice, the amount to be imagined, if not managed properly, can overshadow the fiction, until everything comes to seem distended rather than pregnant with portent.  For this reason (and others, of course), minimalism is difficult to master, and only certain kinds of writers (not to mention readers) are suited for it.  

I myself prefer the opposite of minimalism:  

"They looked out, frowning into the sun, at what was left of a High Victorian garden, a wide round pond with a disused fountain of crumbling tritons, like angry, pock-marked babies, at its centre; the water had dropped to show the weed-covered pipe that fed it. The surrounding parterres had all been put to grass ten years before, when help had become a hopeless problem; though here and there a curved seat or a sundial or an unkillable old rose made a puzzled allusion to the plan it had once been part of." (The Spell, Alan Hollinghurst) 


In such writing, the writer is interested in parading the depth of his own imagination; in proving that he is better at imagining things than you are.   He too, leaves things to your imagination; but what he leaves is rather ordinary and can be deferred endlessly, until the end of the novel is met.  It is not an oversimplification to say that most novels can be located in a spectrum between minimalism and abundance.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Being not a review of Fortress of Solitude

I'm being blown apart by Jonathan Lethem's Fortress of Solitude.  I haven't finished it yet, so I can't say it's best novel I've read in the past few years, but so far, a fifth of the way through, it's already taught me more about technique than possibly any other novel, The Line of Beauty excluded.  I have a strange, almost paternal reaction to critiques of it: the review by William Skidelsky in the London Review of Books, for instance, may be interesting enough in its structural observations, but it makes very little of the endless mastery of ventriloquism on display in every single sentence in that book.   On the flip side, we have the useless reviews by any number of newspapers; either (on this side of the Atlantic) mindlessly congratulatory or (on the other side) vague but mostly positive. No one seems to have done justice to the purely belletristic pleasures of the novel, and, once I'm done reading it---PhD be damned---I intend to do exactly that.    

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Robert Gottlieb the great editor on Joseph H. the great writer


GOTTLIEB
Joe Heller and I have always been on exactly the same wavelength editorially, and the most extraordinary proof of this came up when we were working on Something Happened. It’s a deeply disturbing book about a very conflicted man—a man who is consumed with anxiety and all kinds of serious moral problems—and his name was Bill Slocum. Well, we went through the whole book, and divided it up into chapters and all the rest of it, and at the end of the process I said, Joe, this is going to sound crazy to you but this guy is not a Bill. He said, Oh really, what do you think he is? I said, He’s a Bob. And Joe looked at me and said, Hewas a Bob, and I changed his name to Bill because I thought you would be offended if I made him a Bob. I said, Oh no, I don’t think he’s anything like me, it’s just that this character is a Bob. So we changed it back. It was absolutely amazing. How did it happen? I don’t know. I suppose our convoluted, neurotic, New York Jewish minds work the same way.

Saturday, February 4, 2012

Being not a review of The Flame Alphabet

Some preliminary thoughts on Ben Marcus's The Flame Alphabet: (twenty pages in, but never too soon to make a prejudiced, half-baked, ill-considered judgment of what may well be a fucking awesome novel.)

1) Not another goddamn story about Jewish identity! Enough already! We've heard from you guys. We fucking keep hearing from you guys. Why not (for a change) stop being selfconscious about your historicality, or lack thereof, and make a sincere bid for ahistoricality? Huh?

2) The novel's main selling point is also its conceit (surprise, surprise):  Far into the future, or perhaps right now in an alternate reality, adults are getting sick; they're dying off.  The culprit appears to be language, or, more specifically, language as spoken by children; children who, at least initially, are unwitting about the havoc they wreak on their unsuspecting progenitors.  I haven't read enough of the novel to see what Marcus makes of this premise, but I foresee some purely technical problems.  

First of all: the good anti-utopian novel usually comes with a lot of politio-socio-cultural baggage, which it must (at least initially) conceal, and which sloughs off gradually, revealing itself for what it is: a contentious and polemical little parasite hosted by an otherwise lovable story.  In such novels, the hook is the plot; the social commentary is just along for the ride, and by the time you notice it's there, it's too late: you find out the Amazon Used Book seller from whom you bought the book has a shitty return policy. 

Marcus is having none of this. He's brandishing his symbolic sword---with which he will no doubt cut a swath through the modern novel, or at least corrupt and dated conceptions of it---he's brandishing that sexy katana in the plain light of day. He's using that little beast to slice plotwise through the novel.  And he's letting you catch him in the act. Is this calculated, a bit of the notorious Marcus swagger?  Or is it just him saying: "Wait till you hear the idea for my new novel. It's just like Contagion, except---drum roll...---the disease is language! Language, do you see, Heidi! It's brilliant!" 

The second problem is obvious: Isn't it ironic that a novel about the death of language, or, equivalently, the massacring of people by language, can only be communicated through language? Isn't there something unseemly about this irony?  I'm sure Marcus is aware of this, and I'm sure there's some phenomenally brilliant cultural studies point to be made about exactly such a dichotomy, but I'm not sure if it belongs in this, or indeed, any novel.   

Third, an aesthetic consideration.   There's something brain-fartesque about having to read pleonasms, especially bombastic ones.  I will not list any of Marcus's here, but suffice it to say that the bodily degeneration Marcus needs to describe to describe the disease of language is affecting enough without having to resort to comma-separated lists each of whose adjectives neighbors the last in meaning as well as sound. 

3) The back cover lists praise for the novel by J. Safran Foer (the author, and lately the auteur, of  Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close), by Tom McCarthy (of C fame) and Michael Chabon.  What that last man had to say about The Flame Alphabet  is interesting for its own sake: 

Echoes of Ballard's insanely sane narrators, echoes of Kafka's terrible gift for metaphor, echoes of David Lynch, William Burroughs, Robert Walser, Bruno Schulz and Mary Shelley: a world of echoes and re-echoes---I mean our world---out of which the sanely insane genius of Ben Marcus somehow manages to wrest something new and unheard of.  And yet as I read The Flame Alphabet, late into the night, feverishly turning the pages, I felt myself, increasingly, in the presence of the classic. 

Start with that  adverbial adjective: "insanely sane". What does it even mean?  What qualities in the world begin dully as sane ones, and are then somehow animated by being insanely so?  The word "sane" can be used as a compliment or a pejorative; in the former case, "insanely" can only water sanity down, and in the latter, heighten its pejorative effect.  "Insanely sane" is no handsome tuple of complicity. It speaks, if at all, of writerly weariness.

Then we have all the egregious name dropping, the roll calling.  I imagine Chabon, taken somewhat by his late sleepless and febrile night, setting out to write the sentence, realizing that he'd have to bring an original name to the otherwise predictable list, crossing out, say, Pynchon from the list of Possible Brilliant Writers, hitting on David Lynch, whose Mulholland Drive he'd had the pleasure of only recently watching, patting himself on the back, then hitting on Robert Walser and Mary Shelley, and rewarding himself with a long day's rest. He'd earned it, after all.

And then there's that last sentence.  If you forget for a moment the cliched and almost certainly untrue and in any case irrelevant image of Chabon's staying up till late to finish this novel---what is he, a fifty-something reading an airport bodice-ripper?----if you forget, and perhaps forgive this, what of: "[...] felt myself, increasingly, in the presence of the classic." The classic?  The only one?  Maybe he meant "the classic", as in the archetypal classic.  Or maybe he meant "the classic", as in "the exemplar of its kind"; this is classic Realism; this is classic primate behavior; this is classic Mitt.  Whatever it's meaning, never has a piece of prose so transparently in thrall to its audience been so transparently opaque.  It's blurb writing at its worst; or, (if you're in an uncharitable mood), classic Chabon.

Thursday, October 13, 2011

James Wood has, disturbingly but not quite unexpectedly, slouched into self-plagiarism.  

On the plus side, Hollinghurst finally gets some New Yorker action. Not that he needs it.  

Thursday, September 15, 2011

My favorite human being I've never known

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/audio/2011/sep/13/alan-hollinghurst-book-club-podcast

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Heh

One reason he was keen to finish the book was that he was running out of money. "I handed it in at the end of September, which was two years later than planned, so I had absolutely no money left. It was really getting quite hairy." Winning the Booker netted £50,000, there were foreign rights, a TV adaptation, and then the advance for this book, but even a novelist as successful as Hollinghurst – producing on average a book every five years – is not earning a vast sum annually.


Sunday, May 22, 2011

Wallace Stevens's It Must Change

IT MUST CHANGE

I

The old seraph, parcel-gilded, among violets
Inhaled the appointed odor, while the doves
Rose up like phantoms from chronologies.

The Italian girls wore jonquils in their hair
And these the seraph saw, had seen long since,
In the bandeaux of the mothers, would see again.

The bees came booming as if they had never gone,
As if hyacinths had never gone. We say
This changes and that changes. Thus the constant

Violets, doves, girls, bees and hyacinths
Are inconstant objects of inconstant cause
In a universe of inconstancy. This means

Night-blue is an inconstant thing. The seraph
Is satyr in Saturn, according to his thoughts.
It means the distaste we feel for this withered scene

Is that it has not changed enough. It remains,
It is a repetition. The bees come booming
As if—The pigeons clatter in the air.

An erotic perfume, half of the body, half
Of an obvious acid is sure what it intends
And the booming is blunt, not broken in subtleties.


II

The President ordains the bee to be
Immortal. The President ordains. But does
The body lift its heavy wing, take up,

Again, an inexhaustible being, rise
Over the loftiest antagonist
To drone the green phrases of its juvenal?

Why should the bee recapture a lost blague,
Find a deep echo in a horn and buzz
The bottomless trophy, new hornsman after old?

The President has apples on the table
And barefoot servants round him, who adjust
The curtains to a metaphysical t

And the banners of the nation flutter, burst
ON the flag-poles in a red-blue dazzle, whack
At the halyards. Why, then, when in golden fury

Spring vanishes the scraps of winter, why
Should there be a question of returning or
Of death in memory’s dream? Is spring a sleep?

This warmth is for lovers at last accomplishing
Their love, this beginning, not resuming, this
Booming and booming of the new-come bee.


III

The great statue of the General Du Puy
Rested immobile, though neighboring catafalques
Bore off the residents of its noble Place.

The right, uplifted foreleg of the horse
Suggested that, at the final funeral,
The music halted and the horse stood still.

On Sundays, lawyers in their promenades
Approached this strongly-heightened effigy
To study the past, and doctors, having bathed

Themselves with care, sought out the nerveless frame
Of a suspension, a permanence, so rigid
That it made the General a bit absurd,

Changed his true flesh to an inhuman bronze.
There never had been, never could be, such
A man. The lawyers disbelieved, the doctors

Said that as keen, illustrious ornament,
As a setting for geraniums, the General,
The very Place Du Puy, in fact, belonged

Among our more vestigial states of mind.
Nothing had happened because nothing had changed.
Yet the General was rubbish in the end.



IV

Two things of opposite natures seem to depend
On one another, as a man depends
On a woman, day on night, the imagined

On the real. This is the origin of change.
Winter and spring, cold copulars, embrace
And forth the particulars of rapture come.

Music falls on the silence like a sense,
A passion that we feel, not understand.
Morning and afternoon are clasped together

And North and South are an intrinsic couple
And sun and rain a plural, like two lovers
That walk away as one in the greenest body.

In solitude the trumpets of solitude
Are not of another solitude resounding;
A little string speaks for a crowd of voices.

The partaker partakes of that which changes him.
The child that touches takes character from the thing,
The body, it touches. The captain and his men

Are one and the sailor and the sea are one.
Follow after, O my companion, my fellow, my self,
Sister and solace, brother and delight.



V

On a blue island in a sky-wide water
The wild orange trees continued to bloom and to bear,
Long after the planter’s death. A few limes remained,

Where his house had fallen, three scraggy trees weighted
With garbled green. These were the planter’s turquoise
And his orange blotches, these were his zero green,

A green baked greener in the greenest sun.
These were his beaches, his sea-myrtles in
White sand, his patter of the long sea-slushes.

There was an island beyond him on which rested,
An island to the South, on which rested like
A mountain, a pine-apple pungent as Cuban summer.

And la-bas, la-bas, the cool bananas grew,
Hung heavily on the great banana tree,
Which pierces clouds and bends on half the world.

He thought often of the land from which he came,
How that whole country was a melon, pink
If seen rightly and yet a possible red.

An unaffected man in a negative light
Could not have borne his labor nor have died
Sighing that he should leave the banjo’s twang.


VI

Bethou me, said sparrow, to the crackled blade,
And you, and you, bethou me as you blow,
When in my coppice you behold me be.

Ah, ke! The bloody wren, the felon jay,
Ke-ke, the jug throated robin pouring out,
Bethou, bethou, bethou me in my glade.

There was such idiot minstrelsy in rain,
So many clappers going without bells,
That these bethous compose a heavenly gong.

One voice repeating, one tireless chorister,
The phrases of a single phrase, ke-ke,
A single text, granite monotony,

One sole face, like a photograph of fate,
Glass-blower’s destiny, bloodless episcopus,
Eye without lid, mind without any dream—

These are of minstrels lacking minstrelsy,
Of an earth in which the first leaf is the tale
Of leaves, in which the sparrow is a bird

Of stone, that never changes. Bethou him, you
And you, bethou him and bethou. It is
A sound like any other. It will end.


VII

After a luster of the moon, we say
We have not the need of any paradise,
We have not the need of any seducing hymn.

It is true. Tonight the lilacs magnify
The easy passion, the ever-ready love
Of the lover that lies within us and we breathe

An odor evoking nothing, absolute.
We encounter in the dead middle of the night
The purple odor, the abundant bloom.

The lover sighs as for accessible bliss,
Which he can take within him on his breath,
Possess in his heart, conceal and nothing known.

For easy passion and ever-ready love
Are of our earthy birth and here and now
And where we live and everywhere we live,

As in the top-cloud of a May night-evening,
As in the courage of the ignorant man,
Who changes by book, in the heat of the scholar, who writes

The book, hot for another accessible bliss;
The fluctuations of certainty, the change
Of degrees of perception in the scholar’s dark.



VIII

On her trip around the world, Nanzia Nunzio
Confronted Ozymandia. She went
Alone and like a vestal long-prepared.

I am the spouse. She took her necklace off
And laid it in the sand. As I am, I am
The spouse. She opened her stone-studded belt.

I am the spouse, divested of bright gold,
The spouse beyond emerald or amethyst,
Beyond the burning body that I bear.

I am the woman stripped more nakedly
Than nakedness, standing before an inflexible
Order, saying I am the contemplated spouse.

Speak to me that, which spoken, will array me
In its own only precious ornament.
Set on me the spirit’s diamond coronal.

Clothe me entire in the final filament,
So that I tremble with such love so known
And myself am precious for your perfecting.

Then Ozymandias said the spouse, the bride
Is never naked. A fictive covering
Weaves always glistening form the heart and mind.


IX

The poem goes from the poet’s gibberish to
The gibberish of the vulgate and back again.
Does it move to and fro or is it of both

At once? Is it a luminous flattering
Or the concentration of a cloudy day?
Is there a poem that never reaches words

And one that chaffers the time away?
Is the poem both peculiar and general?
There’s a meditation there, in which there seems

To be an evasion, a thing not apprehended or
Not apprehended well. Does the poet
Evade us, as in a senseless element?

Evade, this hot, dependent orator,
The spokesman at our bluntest barriers,
Exponent by a form of speech, the speaker

Of a speech only a little of the tongue?
It is the gibberish of the vulgate that he seeks.
He tries by a peculiar speech to speak

The peculiar potency of the general,
To compound the imagination’s Latin with
The lingua franca et jocundissima.


X

A bench was his catalepsy, Theatre
Of Trope. He sat in the park. The water of
The lake was full of artificial things,

Like a page of music, like an upper air,
Like a momentary color, in which swans
Were seraphs, were saints, were changing essences.

The west wind was the music, the motion, the force
To which the swans curveted, a will to change,
A will to make iris frettings on the blank.

There was a will to change, a necessitous
And present way, a presentation, a kind
Of volatile world, too constant to be denied,

The eye of a vagabond in metaphor
That catches our own. The casual is not
Enough. The freshness of transformation is

The freshness of a world. It is our own,
It is ourselves, the freshness of ourselves,
And that necessity and that presentation

Are rubbings of a glass in which we peer.
Of these beginnings, gay and green, propose
The suitable amours. Time will write them down.

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Rhythm, biatches!

A prose cadence, sinuous and archaic, can be seen making its way through the newspaper chat columns:

(Martin Luther King) "I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy."

Is that MLK we hear, declaiming to the masses? Or is it a portentous pretender? The answer seems to hinge on that last negation, which punily, and belatedly, qualifies what has come before it. "Not even an enemy", we would say, but only after we've crossed off a host of other possibilities: Not eunuchs, not New York cabbies, not card-carrying scientologists, not taxidermists, segregationists or theologians, not Iraqi-war veterans or Bin-Laden sympathizers...not even an enemy! No, that last phrase surely ruins everything; imagine instead the sentence without it:

"I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one."

This is more in tune with the "I-have-a-dream" MLK, the one given to a certain endearing sententiousness. The sentence could be made even better, of course, by interposing a "single" between the "of" and the "one", but it is easier to make it worse:

"I'll mourn the loss [...]"

This sounds like a private decision rather than a public haranguement, and quite spoils the effect. Even worse would be the replacement of "thousands" by "millions":

"I will mourn the loss of millions of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one."

This is no good. The word "millions" has been appropriated, since the late '70s, by the culture at large, and is now a vulgar---vulgar in the sense of common---placeholder for anything big; it also calls to mind millionaires, the prices of certain extremely expensive houses (like that of my advisor, for instance), the net worth of Jim Carrey, and the number of poor people in the world. On the other hand, "thousands", though actually smaller, is notionally larger; the medial diphthong "ou" contributes to the sense it gives off of a general proliferation. Note that neither "billions" nor "trillions" would work, because they exaggerate, and "tens", while interesting, has the unfortunate side-effect of being too specific. "I will mourn the loss of tens of lives---" "But not hundreds?"

There are other interesting missteps. The comma, to start with, is well-placed. Imagine if it weren't there:

"I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives but I will not rejoice in the death of one."

This is ungrammatical, but what if:

"I will mourn the loss of millions of precious lives but will not rejoice in the death of one."

There's something ineffably wrong about this. The "will" and the "not" seem to beg to be contracted into a "won't", and the sentence collapses on the resulting absurd drop in register. We also notice that there are two "wills" in the sentence, each of which depends on the other for its presence:

"I will mourn the loss of millions of precious lives, but I'll not rejoice in the death of one."

This sounds like an Indian; a Tamilian, even. "I'll not rejoice [...]", with a nasal "no" and a hard "t"; a Tamilian on his Bajaj, holding forth to another Tamilian at a traffic signal while the Tamilian policeman, wiping, from his brow, some good old-fashioned Tamil sweat, waves them on their way. It is, in short, another absurd formulation, a fortuitous mix of high and low registers, effective as a piece of fictional dialogue, but inarguably unquotable.

The sentence, then, walks a tightrope of implications without quite falling off. Does it really belong to MLK? No, as bloggers have recently found out; the culprit was Jessica Dovey, a Japan-based teacher of English, who, while tweeting her disgust at Bin Laden's death, blended her own words of judgment with those of MLK's, resulting in a week's worth of misattributions by the general public.

It is a small and unintentional achievement that the quote was able to masquerade for so long as MLK's; I blame George Orwell, whose 1984 Dovey was reading before she found out about OBL's death and decided to reach for her Twitter app. 1984, as anyone who has read it knows, is full of ghastly, obviously-allegorical happenings. A sample from the first chapter, from the "Two minutes hate" part, reads:

"In its second minute the Hate rose to a frenzy. People were leaping up and
down in their places and shouting at the tops of their voices in an effort
to drown the maddening bleating voice that came from the screen. The little
sandy-haired woman had turned bright pink, and her mouth was opening and
shutting like that of a landed fish. Even O'Brien's heavy face was flushed.
He was sitting very straight in his chair, his powerful chest swelling and
quivering as though he were standing up to the assault of a wave. The
dark-haired girl behind Winston had begun crying out 'Swine! Swine! Swine!'
and suddenly she picked up a heavy Newspeak dictionary and flung it at the
screen. It struck Goldstein's nose and bounced off; the voice continued
inexorably. In a lucid moment Winston found that he was shouting with the
others and kicking his heel violently against the rung of his chair. The
horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to
act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining
in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous
ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash
faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of
people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into
a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an
abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to
another like the flame of a blowlamp. Thus, at one moment Winston's hatred
was not turned against Goldstein at all, but, on the contrary, against
Big Brother, the Party, and the Thought Police; and at such moments his
heart went out to the lonely, derided heretic on the screen, sole guardian
of truth and sanity in a world of lies. And yet the very next instant he
was at one with the people about him, and all that was said of Goldstein
seemed to him to be true. At those moments his secret loathing of Big
Brother changed into adoration, and Big Brother seemed to tower up, an
invincible, fearless protector, standing like a rock against the hordes
of Asia, and Goldstein, in spite of his isolation, his helplessness, and
the doubt that hung about his very existence, seemed like some sinister
enchanter, capable by the mere power of his voice of wrecking the structure
of civilization."

Reading this, and then reading about the assassination of the most dangerous terrorist in the world, is enough to set anyone on their own flights of judgment, peppered with a generous supply of "I will"s and "rejoice"s. No wonder Dovey was all shaken up, all biblical; she was responding to Orwell's rhetoric, not to Bin Laden's death.

But here's a more interesting postulate: can something of Orwell's rhythm be detected in the Dovey-authored quote? Specifically, is there something in the Two Minutes Hate section---which Dovey claims to have been reading immediately before before watching the news on OBL's death ---that is syntactically identical to Dovey's "I will [..]"? Maybe. I haven't been able to verify this conjecture myself, at least not in any detail; a perfunctory glance at the chapter in question hasn't yielded much. In any case, Orwell's first chapters are full of specificities, like those of a diligent thriller novelist; it is only later, during the final chapters, that the sententious abstraction, from which Dovey may plausibly have derived her own, kicks in. Besides, these postulates are less interesting in the phase when the postulate-er goes about his business, reporting clues and dead-ends with a poker-faced excitability that is sadly unrequited by the reader. Better to leave the entire thing hanging, as it were, by a thread of implication that the reader knows can be disentangled, if only the writer, or the reader, had the energy to do so.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

A visit from the goon squad

A Visit from the Goon Squad is an upbeat book that pretends, for most of its 273 pages, to be the just the opposite. The novel opens with kleptomaniac New Yorker Sasha, who is having a difficult time controlling her habit: she steals a woman's wallet, and penitently returns it after swearing the woman to secrecy. Later, we are treated to procession of junkies, of musicians grown fat and cranky, of ex-jailbirds wanting a new start; of adulterers; of mildly untruthful wives, and their capitalistically-minded record-producer husbands; of the suicidally unloved. The profusion of characters, and the rather saturnine turns their lives tend to take, is meant to point at the pathetically fragmented lives that the fin-de-siecle generation are doomed to lead; Goon Squad is thus a postmodern novel as well as a novel that aspires to the condition of postmodernity, a rarity in today's literary climate, in which novels of the former kind feature cheerfully self-conscious narrators with a talent, or at least a taste, for the grotesque, and those of the latter kind exist, if at all, as gleams in the eyes of a few comp.lit senior-years from Stanford.

But Jennifer Egan, the author, is too kind-hearted, or perhaps too content, to follow this oddly plausible vision to its logical end. For Egan, pathos = drama, but also pathos = hope, which is a rather obvious, New-York-Times-Top-20 kind of viewpoint. She would rather be programmatically forgiving than thoughtfully vatic; she cleaves to a certain mentality that the rich New York based author seems to find irresistible, namely that a) New York is the center of the universe and b) New York will heal everything, including poverty, deadbeatness, obscurity, kleptomania, and, paradoxically, narcissism. (She shares this aesthetic with several of her colleagues, among whom number Jonathan Franzen, Colum McCann, and nearly all of the anointed twenty under forty, to name only the ones that immediately come to mind.) For her, New York is to literature what LA is Hollywood, a fact which, if true, should cause more depression than joy.

But it's all good. Goon squad achieves a canny populism---readers are sure to praise its large "palette" of characters, its plotless grandeur, its thematic coherence, and its symmetry---at the expense of... almost everything else worth talking about, but this is a loss that such novels can take very gracefully. Egan is one of a cabal of writers---Franzen is another---who are able to silence detractors at nearly every sentence, every scene, every piece of dialogue that passes between their characters; never mind the crumbling building, look how beautiful its bricks are. The fact that we value such novelists over, say, less obviously brilliant ones, the anti-David-Mitchells of the world, the dogged pencil pushers with high-flown artistic ideas but zero economic nous, is probably more our fault than theirs. They, like Fox News or Fukushima, are just giving us what we want.