Vincent Can’t Sleep

I ran across VIncent Can’t Sleep: Van Gogh Paints the Night Sky at the library two years ago and checked it out to read to my kids. It simply but movingly tells the story of Van Gogh’s lifetime struggle with insomnia, hints at his broader problems with mental health, and suggests the role these played in his unique work. I enjoyed it, the kids enjoyed it, and we returned it to the library.

Two things have happened since then that have deepened my appreciation of the book, though. First, shortly after first reading Vincent Can’t Sleep to the kids I read Russ Ramsey’s Rembrandt is in the Wind, which includes a chapter on Van Gogh and his difficulties, and the followup, Van Gogh Has a Broken Heart, which is very specifically about pain and hardship in the making of art. Both made me think more seriously about Van Gogh’s life and work and especially his suffering.

Second, as I’ve mentioned before, early this year I got plumb worn out. I was tired and depressed and—the worst of my symptoms—I couldn’t sleep. I’ve had trouble sleeping before and even worked it into one of my novels, but this year I had real insomnia.

I’m thankful to say I’m much better—and perhaps I can tell the whole story of this bad winter and spring someday—but revisiting Vincent Can’t Sleep this week I had a much deeper understanding of the story it tells and, as moved as I was the first time, it meant even more to me.

The author, Barb Rosenstock, begins with Vincent’s childhood in Zundert, where, in the attic room he shares with his devoted younger brother Theo, he often struggles to sleep. He wanders at night, once going on a long midnight walk that inadvertently takes him across the border into Belgium. The night sky comforts him in ways daytime human company cannot. The story follows him to boarding school and his first job in his uncle’s art gallery. He is lonely, creative, and volatile. Because he scares his uncle’s customers he tries his hand at other work before settling into the life of a drifting artist.

Art helps him confront his sleeplessness. In a beautiful illustration of an adult Vincent staring into the sky above his Café Terrace at Night in Arles, Rosenstock tells us that “He discovers that darkness is not plain black.”

On the next page, Vincent lies in bed, “shut tight in a hospital,” the monastery asylum where he was confined for a year. This could be the darkest moment of the story, and yet it is here that Vincent, inspired by the view from his window and his lifetime of looking at the night sky, paints his most famous painting. Completing it, he can finally—in the book’s beautiful final image—rest, absorbed into and at one with the night sky.

The story is good but the glory of the book, what makes the story work so powerfully, is the art by Harry Potter illustrator Mary GrandPré. She successfully evokes Van Gogh’s style throughout, recreating some of his most famous landscapes as part of the storybook settings and giving cameos to other Van Gogh paintings in the background. It’s a beautiful book on every level.

But it’s that final image, the restless man at peace, having created something from his unrest, that moves me so much now. At the worst moment of this spring I couldn’t write—I could think of nothing to write and couldn’t muster the will to try. Then, slowly, writing became the best way to handle what I was feeling. Even dashing off a blog post here—“all this nothing,” in the words of You’ve Got Mail, another melancholy story, that has meant more than “so many somethings”—eased my mind. There were many nights through the spring when what made me sleep best was not meds or valerian root tea or the tight control I began exercising over caffeine and screentime, but simply having written.

I am no Van Gogh, but Vincent Can’t Sleep, in its simple way, has helped me understand him and my own life better, and to even more deeply appreciate God’s gift of creativity and how it can heal. Darkness is not plain black.

Fahrenheit 451’s most accurate detail

Having just read a book I hated in high school and found it, as an adult, a masterpiece, I decided to revisit a book I loved in high school but certainly haven’t read in more than twenty years: Fahrenheit 451. To be brief, it holds up.

Not to be brief, it is a commonplace of literary conversation to pit rival dystopias against each other. The two most frequent combatants are Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and Huxley’s Brave New World. Questions of literary quality aside, people debate which of the two better predicted the present. Leaving aside as well that “the present” is a moving target and neither author really intended to predict anything, Orwell is usually praised for imagining the modern surveillance state and its dog-eat-dog culture of denunciation and ideological purity and Huxley for his vision of a technocratic, efficiency-obsessed state that placates the masses with entertainment, psychoactive drugs, and hedonism and—in starkest contrast to Orwell—for depicting the oppression of his dystopia as self-imposed, even embraced.

I happen to agree that Huxley’s insight into the willingness of the masses to be oppressed as long as they can enjoy themselves marks Brave New World as more likely than Nineteen Eighty-Four, if not a better novel. But I think even Huxley misses a piece of the dystopian picture that Bradbury nails in Fahrenheit 451.

First, note that Fahrenheit 451, per Bradbury himself, is “not about censorship” but “the moronic influence of popular culture through local TV news and the proliferation of giant screens.”

Bradbury’s book aligns with Orwell’s in the mobilization of the masses as part of a program of surveillance—the scene in which a news program orders everyone in a neighborhood to look outside at the same time in an attempt to catch Montag and the people robotically obey is chilling, one of the most memorable in the novel—and with Huxley’s in the self-imposed nature of that surveillance. Rather than monitor everyone, all the time, the unseen, unnamed authorities who dispatch the firemen rely on informers. Why would people go along with that, especially as enthusiastically as the informants in the novel do?

Because they don’t want to be bothered, upset, or offended. Bradbury makes this point several times. Literature goes away because it’s too challenging, people are too likely to read things that upset them, and when they drift instead to easy, bland, mass-produced visual entertainment the government doesn’t even have to ban books, the people simply stop reading them—all except a few weirdos whom it is easy to crush as dangers to placid minds of the compliant.

But the most accurate, realistic detail of the entire Fahrenheit 451 scenario is not the surveillance or the ease with which the public can be offended or even how easily they can be manipulated, but just how embarrassingly tawdry the people’s entertainment is. Huxley imagines a world in which people have given up freedom—even the freedom to make their own families—for drugs and orgies. Bradbury correctly intuits that people will sell their freedom much more cheaply. The people of Fahrenheit 451 want interactive daytime TV, nonstop music piped directly into their ears, constant affirmation, and the biggest, brightest, most immersive screens possible. Then they sit there, existing.

If you want an eerily accurate prediction from one of these books, the zoned-out, enervated, and completely empty minds of Mildred and her friends—who even, based on the question “Did you see that Clara Dove five-minute romance last night?” enjoy short-form video content!—should meet all requirements.

Montag’s wife Mildred is pathetic not because she is unfree and infuriating not because she rats Montag out, but because she has bargained away her soul for a mess of pottage. Less than that, actually—pottage would at least be nourishing.

Toad ex machina

For the last couple months I’ve been slowly reading The Wind in the Willows to the kids before bedtime. Last night we finished the penultimate chapter, in which Toad, having escaped from prison and reached Rat’s riverbank hole after a madcap cross-country chase in disguise, learns that Toad Hall has been taken over by the stoats and weasels who live in the woods. They’re living off the fat of Toad’s patrimony and wrecking his house, and, what is more, have guards posted and regular patrols around the perimeter of the property.

Rat and Badger rule out a direct attack. The stoats on guard duty will warn the weasels, who will be ready and waiting—provided Toad and company ever get past the guards. Despite Rat’s passion for weaponry of all kinds, they’re outnumbered and outgunned by opponents who have no scruples. How will they ever get in and reclaim Toad Hall?

Then we read this exchange and revelation:

“Then it’s all over,” sobbed the Toad, crying into the sofa cushions. “I shall go and enlist for a soldier, and never see my dear Toad Hall any more!”

“Come, cheer up, Toady!” said the Badger. “There are more ways of getting back a place than taking it by storm. I haven’t said my last word yet. Now I’m going to tell you a great secret.”

Toad sat up slowly and dried his eyes. Secrets had an immense attraction for him, because he never could keep one, and he enjoyed the sort of unhallowed thrill he experienced when he went and told another animal, after having faithfully promised not to.

“There—is—an—underground—passage,” said the Badger, impressively, “that leads from the river-bank, quite near here, right up into the middle of Toad Hall.”

“O, nonsense! Badger,” said Toad, rather airily. “You’ve been listening to some of the yarns they spin in the public-houses about here. I know every inch of Toad Hall, inside and out. Nothing of the sort, I do assure you!”

“My young friend,” said the Badger, with great severity, “your father, who was a worthy animal—a lot worthier than some others I know—was a particular friend of mine, and told me a great deal he wouldn’t have dreamt of telling you. He discovered that passage—he didn’t make it, of course; that was done hundreds of years before he ever came to live there—and he repaired it and cleaned it out, because he thought it might come in useful some day, in case of trouble or danger; and he showed it to me. ‘Don’t let my son know about it,’ he said. ‘He’s a good boy, but very light and volatile in character, and simply cannot hold his tongue. If he’s ever in a real fix, and it would be of use to him, you may tell him about the secret passage; but not before.’”

Now for an odd comparison:

One of the great weaknesses of Ready Player One is that every time narrator Wade Watts meets some hitherto unprecedented challenge, something that should pose a problem and complicate his quest, he waves dismissively to the reader and lets us know he actually mastered whatever skill is required to complete it—playing an obscure arcade game, watching every episode of some trash 80s sitcom multiple times, memorizing every line of Monty Python and the Holy Grail—ages ago. No biggie. Very convenient.

Wade has a stash of knowledge and skills he only mentions once it becomes relevant. Ordinarily something like this should be set up or at least mentioned beforehand, as in a fair-play mystery. (Contrast this with the best Harry Potter novel, The Prisoner of Azkaban, in which Rowling performs dazzling sleight-of-plot with all but a few key elements plainly visible from the beginning.) What Ready Player One does is not exactly deus ex machina, but it feels both contrived and lazy and it’s all too common in bad fiction.

Badger’s revelation in Wind in the Willows, on the other hand, which similarly introduces a solution to a thorny problem just as it seems impossible, works. It works because the way the information is revealed is rooted in the characters. We know Toad all too well by this chapter—of course if there were a secret passage no one would tell him. And we know Badger both through his actions and his reputation among the other animals—of course if there were a secret passage he would be the best person to trust with the secret. It feels natural and therefore credible not because the secret passage was set up beforehand, but because of what we have seen of the characters all the way through.

The other animals looked hard at Toad to see how he would take it. Toad was inclined to be sulky at first; but he brightened up immediately, like the good fellow he was.

“Well, well,” he said; “perhaps I am a bit of a talker. A popular fellow such as I am—my friends get round me—we chaff, we sparkle, we tell witty stories—and somehow my tongue gets wagging. I have the gift of conversation. I’ve been told I ought to have a salon, whatever that may be. Never mind. Go on, Badger. How’s this passage of yours going to help us?”

That Kenneth Grahame is able to get some laughs—again, rooted in character—out of this plot point is just the icing on the cake.

A weird, unique, brilliant, funny, and fun little novel, and so much better written and plotted than a lot of fiction today. (This climactic section is also quite consciously modeled on the Odyssey, something even my kids picked up on. Perhaps material for a future post.) I’m glad I’m finally reading it and hope to finish it tonight.

Bird dreams

Falconry in the Codex Manesse

Last night I took Catherine Hanley’s recent book about Philip Augustus and the Plantagenets Nemesis: Medieval England’s Greatest Enemy down from the shelf for (possibly) my next read. While leafing through it again, I paused over the epigraph Hanley chose, a passage from Gerald of Wales:

A certain monk, lying in his bed, was thinking a great deal about the sons of King Henry, three such outstanding knights and the fourth and younger likewise, and how there was no ruler on earth who enjoyed such offspring, and what would be their future. Eventually he slept, and it seemed to him that he saw on the bank of the river four birds sitting, namely males of the ducks who the common people call mallards. And although those birds are by nature very beautiful, a voice said to him: ‘Do you see those birds? They are the sons of King Henry, whom you were thinking about. And do you want to see their future? Look up for a moment.’

When he did this, he saw the bird called the falcon above in the sky flying on swift wings, and immediately those four birds, one after the other, suddenly submerged themselves in the water of the river as if in fear of that bird, and afterwards appeared no more. And at once the voice added: ‘Do you wish to know who is that bird flying overhead? Assuredly, it is Philip, son of the king of France.’

Dreams are, of course, a constant in my life and a preoccupation of mine, so I found this an interesting choice to open the book. The nature of the dream also struck me. Likely thanks to Donald and Daffy ducks don’t seem portentous animals to us, but they feature quite dramatically as prey here. A further curiosity: in modern stories dreams are often left uninterpreted for maximum mystery and foreboding. Here the dreamer gets an interpretation before he’s even woken up.

Compare the Nibelungenlied, stanzas 13-14 in the opening “Adventure” or canto, which works as a kind of prologue introducing the beautiful Krimhild and foreshadowing her tragic life, here translated by Burton Raffel:

Living surrounded by splendor Krimhild dreamed a dream:
she had trained a falcon, glorious, strong-winged, fierce, and wild,
and a pair of eagles tore it apart in front of her eyes.
No pain, no sorrow in all the world could be worse than what she’d seen.

She went to Lady Otta and told her mother the dream.
Otta could only find a single truthful meaning:
“The falcon you train must be some noble heroic man,
but if God will not protect him, you will be sure to lose him soon.”

Here you get raptor-on-raptor violence and again, even if it is not in-dream like Gerald’s story, an immediate interpretation.

An interesting parallel, and I’m sure I know at least one other dream about birds that I can’t recall now (likely in Dante). Their largely vanished cultural significance—falconry being a favorite pastime for medieval nobility—also strikes me. Birds as both predator and prey crop up in medieval poetry a lot, but I can’t think of the last time I had a dream about birds.

How the crazies get away with more

My paternal grandfather, who died just before I started this blog almost nine years ago, had a vast store of proverbs. Two I remember and have tried to live by: “Never underestimate the value of being the only sober person in the room” and “It’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission.” (I may have even dropped the latter in a department meeting this week.)

A strange coincidental parallel from this week that brought those to mind:

First, on Substack, cartoonist Owen Cyclops, whose work has inspired ramblings here before, published a short essay on the 1970s Illuminatus! trilogy. I am mostly familiar with these books for first presenting a kind of grand theory-of-everything conspiracy narrative, a major node the present-day conspiracist worldview has grown out of, but Owen notes three interesting but overlooked “freak concepts.”

The first—and I’m not sure how it fits into Illuminatus! since I haven’t read it—concerns one of my favorite historical weirdos, Emperor Norton I. Emperor Norton was a failed businessman turned eccentric who declared himself Emperor of the United States (and later Protector of Mexico) and benevolently “ruled” San Francisco for a few decades. He published imperial proclamations through a local black newspaper (once banning the use of “Frisco” as a nickname for the city) and issued his own currency. He was so odd and beloved that the locals played along and his money was honored in a lot of establishments.

Owen compares Norton and his Norton bucks to a group of contemporary anarchists in Boston who tried the same thing. They were, after the manner of so many 19th-century radicals, utterly serious people, and were arrested the moment they started trying to use their own currency. Owen:

The point of this dichotomy is that Emperor Norton actually did the exact plan that anarchists on the other side of the country also attempted and failed—but he got away with it, specifically because no one took him seriously.

The anarchists presented themselves as serious, and thus were treated seriously. Emperor Norton was viewed as non-serious, and therefore was able to accomplish far more than his serious counterparts.

Second, YouTuber Feral Historian, in the second part of a new series on Planet of the Apes—Pierre Boulle’s novel and various adaptations—notes the tension in the first movie between the apes’ consensus dogma and the challenge Charlton Heston’s Taylor poses to it: a challenge that provokes suppression by the authorities. In a wry aside, referring to the charges brought against ape scientists Zira and Cornelius, he says they are

nonsensical, but state accusations against dissidents often are. . . . All that is required is a story that lets it be wrapped up and disposed of. At least when it comes to polite company. The crazies can say whatever they want, that’s why they’re positioned as crazies. Sometimes it’s why we self-position as crazies. You can get away with more that way.

Lear’s fool comes to mind. Perhaps there is still a place for such—or, better, as long as there is a place, there is hope. A comfort to those of us who have always used humor as a shield, and encouragement to those of us not taken seriously. Never underestimate the value of being the only person in the room with a sense of humor.

And to conclude with another proverb: “The truth is often spoken in jest.”

“Disproving” Lord of the Flies

I’m not sure how many people would say William Golding’s Lord of the Flies is one of their “favorite” novels, but its persistence on school reading lists and its resulting popular familiarity has given it a lot of influence. It has also attracted criticism, especially from those who, in our sentimental age, find it too “depressing” or “pessimistic.” The deeper critics will sometimes invoke a Rousseauian image of man as “basically good” and condemn Golding for his refusal to acknowledge this. I don’t have much to say in response to this; whether you believe in original sin or not, if you can’t see the potential in yourself to succumb to Lord of the Flies-like pressures, Golding’s book is the medicine you need.

A popular recent line of critique I’ve seen—especially on social media—is that a real-life incident from shortly after the book’s publication “disproves” or shows it to be unrealistic. In 1965, six Tongan schoolboys ran away from their boarding school in a stolen boat and, after being stranded on a desert island, lived fifteen months. They cooperated in finding food and shelter, established orderly routines, and, when finally discovered by a passing Australian fisherman, were in good health and high spirits.

I first recall seeing this argument around the time this Guardian piece came out in May 2020 (rough timing for someone flogging a “hopeful” history of mankind), but it comes up in cycles on Substack. It is usually presented as decisive, a gotcha for Golding and all the doomers who like his novel or at least found it compelling food for thought.

This is a weak argument and a poor comparison. The situation of the Tongan castaways is only superficially similar to Golding’s scenario—basically the only parallels are the school-age boys on an uninhabited Pacific island. The scale and circumstances are fundamentally different.

Consider: in the real-life incident, six teenage boys from similar backgrounds who were already friends planned and voluntarily ran away from their school. They brought preexisting community and shared goals to the island with them. Both collaboration and negotiation occurred at the level of intimate friendship.

In Lord of the Flies, dozens of boys, only some of whom actually know each other, are thrown together by happenstance when their plane is brought down in an apparent nuclear war. Their ages vary much more, they come from different backgrounds—the class and regional difference evinced by Piggy’s pronunciation of asthma is a significant repeated joke—and the only bonds they share are either created deliberately after the crash, as in the friendship of Ralph and Piggy or the entire community itself, or small preexisting cliques, like Jack and his crew of choirboys. Loyalty to these groups has to be subordinated to the whole, competing interests debated and judged, and peace maintained between strangers and enemies.

Golding is quite clearly concerned with the artificiality of society, which, to rise above the level of a mere organic group of friends, must combine and coordinate multiple such groups. The island setting is both a spoof of Victorian Robinsonades, novels in which decent chaps effortlessly remake civilization on remote islands, and a jab at the Enlightenment “state of nature” idea that undergirded them—and modern optimistic critics of the novel.

There may be legitimate lines of criticism to explore regarding Lord of the Flies—although not regarding its craft or magnificent science-fiction atmosphere—or the philosophical assumptions and worldview Golding expresses in it, but this isn’t one. The real-life Tongan boys’ adventure, as fascinating and dramatic as it is, bears more similarity to Huckleberry Finn than Lord of the Flies.

Rereading and maturity

A few years ago an episode of the late lamented Great Books podcast on For Whom the Bell Tolls convinced me to give Ernest Hemingway another shot someday. Hemingway’s appearance as an important side character in Tim Powers’s latest, The Mills of the Gods, pushed me to start now.

I spent years hating Hemingway, all because of A Farewell to Arms. I read it in high school at the age of sixteen or seventeen, probably because I had discovered All Quiet on the Western Front and wanted another hard-hitting novel about combat. A Farewell to Arms, with its ambulance driver narrator and minimal behind-the-lines action—during a retreat, no less—was not that book. I might have finished the book merely disappointed were it not for the romantic plot between protagonist Frederic Henry and nurse Catherine Barkley.

My seventeen-year old response to Hemingway’s novel was essentially: This idiot gets a woman pregnant, bails on the army, and expects us to feel sorry for him! Everything bad that happens to him is his fault!

The book miffed me so much that for the next twenty-five years the only other Hemingway I read was The Old Man and the Sea, which I liked. But I couldn’t help noticing that a lot of my own favorite writers loved Hemingway and often mentioned how much they had learned from reading and rereading his work. Elmore Leonard was the most important of these; I couldn’t shake off his opinion the way I did the literary critics and lit professors in their modish sinecures.

Now I’m rereading A Farewell to Arms. There are no words to describe how differently it affects me at forty-two.

I missed all the implicit, unstated details that make the story affecting. At seventeen I took Henry and Catherine to be immoral, simpliciter. Now I see that Henry, for all his experience and understanding of the war, is hopelessly naive. He doesn’t understand that his feelings for Catherine are pure childish infatuation. He begs her for sex and doesn’t realize she’s only caving to the continuous pressure he’s putting on her. He doesn’t see that she merely feels sorry for him. His neediness and even his contentment when things go his way are pathetic. Even after she has become pregnant and he feebly tries to plan for the future, she is standoffish and reserves part of herself from him. A telling moment about halfway through:

“Wine is a grand thing,” I said. “It makes you forget all the bad.”
“It’s lovely,” said Catherine. “But it’s given my father gout very badly.”
“Have you a father?”
“Yes,” said Catherine. “He has gout. You won’t ever have to meet him.”

Henry hasn’t even bothered to find out about Catherine’s family up to this point and he misses entirely the import of “You won’t ever have to meet him.” Catherine sees no future in this. Whether she has plans for later or simply feels trapped, she’s waiting him out.

Every other character sees these things but Henry. Most importantly, the novel does, too. A Farewell to Arms is narrated by an older Henry with a decade or more of perspective on these events. (Reading the baseball news in the hospital he notes for the reader of 1929: “Babe Ruth was a pitcher then playing for Boston.”) The novel’s profound pathos is rooted in irony. The reader, through the old Henry’s more mature narration, sees what Henry doesn’t: his situation, the problems he’s creating with Catherine, how she actually feels about him despite his fervent crush.

Henry is whining about problems he caused himself? That’s the point. Benefit of hindsight. He makes terrible choices, but unlike at seventeen, I sympathize, because I can recognize the foolishness that the young Henry can’t. Anyone who has ever remembered youthful sin and bad choices—especially in a doomed or one-sided relationship—has felt the same pang. A Farewell to Arms evokes it with agonizing truthfulness. This is what I was too immature to detect in high school.

A few years ago when I read The Great Gatsby for the first time I wondered why it was ever assigned to high schoolers. What could a fifteen- or sixteen-year old hope to get out of a book, as I put it later, “of hidden pasts, severed roots, lust, and mountains of regret,” that “depends for its resonance on similarly long, difficult experience”? They are likely not mature enough to get what Fitzgerald is doing. Worse, reading it for symbolism and technique when you’re not ready for the story will flatten and cheapen it if it doesn’t ruin it altogether.

A Farewell to Arms offers precisely that example in my own life. It makes much clearer to me now the role of maturity not only in understanding but in responding rightly to a great novel.

If I’m celebrating people publicly changing their minds this week, I’m glad to admit I was wrong about the novel and Hemingway. I regret that it took me so long to come back to A Farewell to Arms, but I’m glad that I’ve read it now in a time and place where I can get what Hemingway was doing. It’s subtle, understated, and that much more powerfully moving, and even though I know what tragedy is approaching Henry and Catherine, I can’t wait to finish it.

On top of everything else...

In The Book Club’s episode on The Thirty-Nine Steps, which I wrote about two days ago, Dominic Sandbrook describes the trick John Buchan plays on the reader in the first chapter when Scudder, a crank American investigative reporter, reveals to the narrator that the plot he’s uncovered to foment world war is a Jewish conspiracy. This turns out not to be the case, but Sandbrook describes the way some readers—many readers, it would seem—react to Scudder’s revelation when they forget that Scudder is a fictional character: they assume that the author “has left himself down,” in the understated British phrase.

That brought to mind one of the few passages I can remember from The Thanatos Syndrome, the Walker Percy novel with the Robert Ludlum title. (I read The Thanatos Syndrome during our honeymoon, which was a legendarily poor choice for such a happy time.) Near the midpoint of the novel, Dr Tom More visits Father Smith, an eccentric priest living in isolation atop an abandoned firetower in the Louisiana woods. Father Smith, who may have moved beyond eccentricity into insanity, makes More increasingly uncomfortable with his disjointed theological ramblings, and as More tries to open the hatch to leave the exchange reaches its climax:

“My heart sinks. On top of everything else, is he one of those?”

“The Holocaust was a consequence of the sign that could not be evacuated.”
“Right.”
“Who remembers the Ukrainians?”
“True.”
“Let me tell you something, Tom. People have the wrong idea about the Holocaust. The Holocaust, as people see it, is a myth.”
Oh my. My heart sinks. On top of everything else, is he one of those? I try harder to open the damn door.

This too turns out to be a misunderstanding of some kind, but I think of this passage often because More’s sinking feeling is all too familiar now.

I almost wrote a post like this four years ago after a certain rapper’s deranged pro-Hitler interview with a well-known paranoiamonger. I didn’t, because I don’t care about that guy and I didn’t really want to address anti-Semitism here at the time, but the moment I saw the headlines I thought the exact words: “On top of everything else, is he one of those?”

And of course I’ve had many, many more occasions to remember that line since. And the groundswell, the anonymous comment-section lurkers and social media cranks, has given way to high-profile media personalities with millions of followers. Someday I’ll write about my realization that subjects I once thought rare and academic have, in fact, returned in new strength. But in the meantime, one hopes for more John Buchans, refusing to conform to such conspiratorial bigotry no matter how widespread.

Sandbrook and Syrett sing Buchan’s praises

I’ve greatly enjoyed The Rest is History’s spinoff show, The Book Club, and the fun but in-depth discussions of its hosts, Dominic Sandbrook and Tabby Syrett, ever since it launched with a great discussion of The Hobbit. I wrote about that here. I haven’t caught every episode, skipping some, like The Secret History, to avoid even the possibility of spoilers for books I hope to read soon, but the quality of their conversation has not diminished in the ten months since it began.

A few weeks ago they mentioned that The Thirty-Nine Steps was coming up in their schedule. This caught my attention for obvious reasons. I was excited to hear their discussion, but also a bit hesitant. Three years ago Sandbrook’s narrative of interwar Britain, in which he had used Buchan as a byword for anti-Semitic conspiracism, had provoked what has been a consistently popular post, “Was John Buchan an anti-Semite?”

I have no idea if anyone at The Rest is History has ever seen that post but thousands of other people with the same question have found it through Google. I also had it firsthand from a connection in the UK that someone with much more authority in the subject than I had talked to Sandbrook about the anti-Semitism accusation in person. Would this old slander come up on The Book Club? How would they address it? Would they clear Buchan’s name?

Yes. The episode dropped last night, and I’m thrilled to say it’s one of their best. Dominic and Tabby’s conversation about The Thirty-Nine Steps is wonderful and fair, noting its narrative strengths, especially its breathless pacing and beautiful nature writing, and its innovative model, emulated by everything from James Bond to Jason Bourne—one of the examples of the “high-tech pursuit” I used in my recent discussion of the same with Wade Stotts. They justifiably point out its few minor flaws, such as the rushed, last-page climactic action. (I well remember rereading the final paragraphs the first time I read it, trying to divine precisely what had happened.)

As usual, Dominic and Tabby also do a great job putting the book in its historical context, explaining what The Thirty-Nine Steps has in common with the detective story and invasion literature as well as the ways it diverged from these and what has kept it popular, exciting, and influential when ever since.

But their discussion of Buchan the man is also stellar, paying proper tribute to one of the rare genuinely good men among popular authors. It’s a great quick overview of his life up to the First World War, his amazingly varied career, his views on writing, war, and the Empire, and his personal virtues, not least his fairmindedness and generosity.

Crucially, Dominic acknowledges twice that he was wrong about Buchan and corrects the record on Buchan’s supposed anti-Semitism. He points out that Scudder, the ill-fated journalist whose death kicks off The Thirty-Nine Steps’ chase, turns out to be wrong about his Jewish conspiracy, that this was a great narrative trick Buchan pulls on the reader, as well as the fact that Buchan himself was a Zionist and friend to Jews at a time it wasn’t advantageous to be. (The more things change…)

As my wife pointed out, it’s refreshing to hear of someone correcting themselves and owning up to it. I’ve always liked Sandbrook anyway but this speaks especially well of him.

A great episode on a great book. Tabby mentioned her love of Witch Wood, another of my favorite Buchan novels. Maybe we’ll get an episode on that somewhere down the road. I’d love to hear that. In the meantime, definitely check out The Book Club—I’ve embedded this week’s episode in its YouTube format above—as well as the new Book Club Notes newsletter they announced at the end of the episode.

I, Ripper

The scene of the crime in Jack the Ripper’s five “canonical” murders

I’ll begin this review with a caution—Stephen Hunter’s I, Ripper is thrilling entertainment but not for the faint of heart. Hunter himself noted, at a booksigning at the time of the book’s release in 2015, that he was concerned about the novel’s violence when he submitted the first chapters to his editor. Her response: “Why don’t you move the violence to the front and really start the book off with a bang?”

He did, and it does. Be warned.

Jack the Ripper killed five women—that we are certain of—in the fall of 1888. All of the victims were occasional or professional prostitutes and most of them were alcoholics who spent the money they earned from their johns—thruppence at a time—on gin and, occasionally, one night in a rented bed in a dosshouse. Whitechapel teemed with such as well as recent immigrants from Ireland, Scandinavia, and Eastern Europe—the latter of which included lots of Jews, political radicals, and Jewish political radicals, all on the run from Tsarist persecution—and a constantly changing mob of sailors and industrial workers. The district’s dense network of shops and rowhouses and unlighted maze of small streets and alleys hummed with activity even during the night, as workers walked to or from late shifts at slaughterhouses and factories and the docks and upper class types went slumming in the pubs or, perhaps, looking for a “judy.”

From the first page, in which Jack, as yet unnamed but in his own voice—a found diary—cuts the throat of his first victim, Hunter evokes the jungly tumult and grime of this world brilliantly. I, Ripper’s authentic atmosphere is one of its greatest strengths.

Another is its structure. Telling the story in alternating chapters of Jack’s diary and a 1912 memoir by Jeb, an Irish reporter working under a penname for the Star, a London tabloid, Hunter pits the two against each other as initially unwitting foes. Jack, roaming Whitechapel and brutalizing the lone prostitutes, is driven by some unexplained mission. Jeb, ambitious and cold by his own admission, breaks crucial news about the first murders and starts to make a name for himself.

Jack, not insane but monstrous, is mysterious only in the sense that we hope to learn who he is and why he is doing this. Jeb is a more complicated creature. He realizes he is taking advantage of Jack’s crimes—and his mutilated victims—to build up his own reputation as a writer but genuinely believes in reporting the facts and castigates himself when lured into helping fake the letter that coins the killer’s name. A fellow reporter on the Star, an American, routinely speculates in print and fixates on anti-Semitic theories early on in the crime spree. Jeb worries that his reporting may cause vigilantism or—if his colleague has his way—pogroms.

Just as he develops qualms about his work, Jeb meets Professor Dare. A linguist and an advocate of what might later be called psychological conditioning, Dare offers to share his theory about Jack with Jeb—the killer is dyslexic, and has experience in the remote reaches of Afghanistan, where the women of the tribes disembowel prisoners in exactly the manner Jack does. Find a man matching this description—they decide to call it a “profile”—and they find Jack.

Added to his ambition and his unquiet desire to report accurately and responsibly, Jeb takes on detective work. This will place him on a path to a final collision with Jack the Ripper himself.

I don’t think I can reveal more without giving away too much. I, Ripper’s fictional plot, elegantly interlaced in the imagined diary of Jack and the memoir of Jeb—who turns out to be a real person with a famous name that I don’t want to give away—is solidly constructed and resolves in several good twists, some with surprisingly literary implications. It is one of this grim, gory book’s great enjoyments.

But only one. Another is Hunter’s imagining of the rumbustious world of London journalism. The former movie critic for the Washington Post, his Star newsroom and its combination of jocularity and callousness feels utterly real. A standout chapter is that in which Jeb, goaded into it by his editor and a colleague, forges the first and most famous Jack the Ripper letter. The calculated poetry of the letter and the group effort to get it notoriety is entertaining, convincing—the “Dear Boss” letter has been suspected of fakery since it appeared, but I had never considered its artistic and linguistic character before—and revealing.

“Newspapers,” Jack muses about halfway through. “What’s the point of existing if you’re always going to get everything so wrong?”

That’s the fictional side of I, Ripper. Another pleasure of the book is Hunter’s attention to the actual facts of the Jack the Ripper case. I’ve mentioned his vivid recreation of the grungy, bestial world of Whitechapel—which is not quite on the same level of depravity as a James Ellroy novel but might still leave you wanting to take a shower—but the crimes, the crime scenes, the victims, and many of the other real people involved are painstakingly imagined without the stiff, lifeless effect of some similarly detailed historical novels. The historical figures have personality, living and breathing as convincingly as the fictional characters.

This is especially important in the case of the victims. Hunter doesn’t soft-pedal their lifestyles or recast them as somehow noble, and yet, though staggering drunk, winkingly offering mortal sin to the passerby, or both at the same time, they feel like real people and worthy of sympathy. Their encounters with Jack evoke dread and pity and his treatment of them as objects, mere matter to be parted and manipulated for his own ends, seems more monstrous as a result.

Hunter committed himself to changing as few known historical details as possible, working around the truth rather than altering it for his fiction. In an afterword, he notes four minute details he tweaked, only two of which actually relate directly to Jack’s actions. An impressive achievement. And if you know the case well, he includes enough detail to pinpoint where his fictional story is weaving into the truth. For example, as Jack approaches Elizabeth Stride, the Swedish-born third victim, he passes a man wearing a deerstalker cap. This was a real man seen in conversation with Stride by the penultimate witness to see her alive, a police constable. This places Jack’s assault in time and in relation to other witnesses like Israel Schwartz, who, based on Hunter’s fictional reconstruction of events, did not actually see Jack.

Real life informs the fiction, which convincingly creates an alternative explanation for the known facts. This is a tricky bit of business for a novelist to pull off, and Hunter does it effortlessly—and, for the reader who doesn’t know their Jack the Ripper lore, invisibly and unobtrusively. His fictional solution, rooted as it is in the facts, offers enjoyable resolution to a real life mystery.

If I have any complaints whatsoever about I, Ripper they are minor: a handful of anachronisms (Belloc’s famous line about the Maxim gun, from 1898, is paraphrased by Jack ten years too early) and some tonal convergence of Jack’s diary and Jeb’s memoir that led me to suspect, briefly, that Jeb would turn out to be Jack (he doesn’t; Hunter is much better than that). I suspected the ultimate culprit early—it’s a whodunnit, or maybe who’s-doing-it, after all—but Hunter successfully obscures, misleads, and distracts so that the final reveal was still satisfying.

Finally—an odd complaint—I, Ripper is simply too good. I don’t think I can recommend it to just anyone. This is a gripping, disturbing thriller and a masterpiece of historical fiction, and Hunter’s success in conveying Jack’s horror is what makes it difficult to recommend. But if you’re interested in the case, enjoy a well-constructed crime and suspense novel, and think you can handle a few months in Whitechapel and the company of one of the worst people who ever lived, you should definitely check it out.