Poe and Wolfe

Building off of my post about modern Frogpondians yesterday, at the same time that I started studying Poe’s life more deeply—especially his letters and criticism—I also read more of the late great Tom Wolfe’s journalistic monographs. These include From Bauhaus to Our House, a takedown of modern architecture; The Painted Word, a similar treatment of modern art; and Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers, a brilliant pair of essays about high-minded leftwing activism and its distance from grungy reality.

With all of these assorted things floating around in my mind I realized one day that Poe and Wolfe took a similar glee in identifying and attacking cliques. Both objected to the self-identified, self-satisfied, and self-righteous cognoscenti who have found a way to dominate a particular field and enforce an orthodoxy, all while feathering their nests and basking in a success lauded primarily by its members, whom they treat as the only people that count. Poe had Longfellow and Emerson, Wolfe had Mailer, Updike, and Irving. And Leonard Bernstein. And Le Corbusier. And…

And once I noticed this similarity, I noticed others. I’ve kicked this idea around with a few of y’all in conversation, but wanted to get some of this down in writing. Consider the following notes toward a comparative study of Poe and Wolfe:

  • Both were Southerners

  • Both were Virginians specifically—Wolfe by birth, Poe by rearing and explicit self-identification

  • Both worked primarily in big northeastern cities

  • Both were accounted personally charming and gentlemanly despite their acid literary criticism

  • Both worked in journalism and fiction—Poe considering himself a poet who worked for magazines to (barely) make ends meet while Wolfe was a successful journalist who moved into fiction mid-career

  • Both, in rejecting and attacking the dominant literary cliques, made themselves political outsiders, though neither was particularly interested in politics except as an epiphenomenon of something more important

  • Both had an intense concern for authenticity in fiction

  • Both developed immediately identifiable styles intended to convey something more truthful than the dominant style at the time

  • Both were mocked for their style

I’ve returned to this and thought about it a lot, especially since realizing that the similarities are not just biographical but thematic.

The regional dimension, especially in Poe’s case, is too easily overlooked, but I think it’s fundamental to understanding both men. Back in the spring I watched Radical Wolfe, an excellent recent documentary on Wolfe’s life and career that I meant to review here but never found the time to. I recommend it. It doesn’t cover Wolfe’s youth and education in detail, but the sense of Wolfe as a Southerner amused by the unquestioned pretensions of the Yankees in the society he was forced to keep from Yale onwards comes through clearly. It certainly resonated with me.

And now, after mentally connecting Wolfe with Poe, I have to wonder whether the man in black, whom we are so used to imagining with a far-off gaze and a tired frown, used to wander the streets of New York and Philadelphia with a small, wry smile on his face the way the man in white did.

Speaking of Wolfe, Joel Miller recently posted about the delicate art of book cover design, beginning with the recent news that Picador is reprinting thirteen of Wolfe’s books with new matching covers. I’m not crazy about the cover art, personally, but my Wolfe shelf is a jumble of different trim sizes and if I can someday tidy that up and Wolfe can experience a much-deserved posthumous resurgence, all the better.

Martin and Lewis, envy and fascism

No, not that Martin and Lewis!

This morning a friend passed along an insightful Facebook post from science fiction author Devon Eriksen regarding George RR Martin’s Song of Ice and Fire. The series, Eriksen argues, is unfinishable because what Martin wants to do with it clashes with the form. His story naturally inclines in a direction he refuses to take, leading to the current yearslong stall-out.

And why does Martin refuse to follow his story where the form leads it? “Because he’s a socialist,” Eriksen writes. “And a boomer.”

This combination, part deliberate, part instinctual, gives Martin an inflexible cynicism toward heroes and heroism, a cynicism that has always clearly marked his work. And not just cynicism: people like Martin

want to convince themselves that anything which appears good is secretly evil, actually, and that anyone who makes them feel or look bad is obviously evil because reasons. So when they see a hero, they tend to call him a fascist. . . . [I]n George's world, heroism must be a sham or a weakness, because then George's own bad character is wisdom and enlightenment, instead of just lack of moral virtue.

I seem to remember some very old admonitions against calling good evil and evil good.

I’m less convinced by the generational dimension of this critique—generational labels being a kind of materialist zodiac as far as I’m concerned—but I think Eriksen is onto something with regard to Martin’s vocal leftwing politics. One line in particular struck a chord with me: “Socialism’s motivational core is envy, and its one underlying rule is ‘thou shalt not be better than me’.”

This brought to mind one of the concluding lines of CS Lewis’s essay “Democratic Education,” which was published in April 1944, at the height of World War II: “Envy, bleating ‘I’m as good as you’, is the hotbed of Fascism.”

Envy also leads to bad art, or to no art at all.

Lewis’s insight is especially ironic given what prompted Eriksen’s post in the first place. In a blog post from late August, Martin lamented “war everywhere and fascism on the rise,” leading to this slightly unfair but funny riposte:

 
 

Dissidents in the Soviet Union composed entire books in their heads until they could scribble them down on toilet paper and smuggle them out despite the threat of torture and imprisonment. But then again, writers like Solzhenitsyn were geniuses, and actually believed in something.

You can find Lewis’s “Democratic Education” online or in the slim paperback Present Concerns: Journalistic Essays, which is one of my favorite collections of his work. And for a writer with a stellar work ethic, who got his books done 350 words at a time come hell or high water (or fascism, presumably), here’s historian Thomas Kidd on the slow-burn success of Mick Herron, whose Secret Hours I’m about halfway through right now. As if to underscore the contrast between Herron and what we’re considering here, Kidd titled his post “Writing When You Have No Time to Write.”

Dramatic irony and plot contrivance

Bates and Anna in Downton Abbey and Abby in Blood Simple

Last night RedLetterMedia posted their review of the first season of “The Acolyte,” the latest Star Wars show. I have no interest whatsoever in watching “The Acolyte” but in the course of Mike and Jay’s discussion Jay specifically critiques it for an overused storytelling technique:

One of my least favorite plot contrivances that’s used for, like, lazy screenwriting is the misunderstanding and the not explaining to a character what is going on because the plot demands it. . . . the lazy contrivance of not knowing all the information and not being told the information because if you were then there would be no story.

I should say “misused” rather than “overused.” What Jay is describing is dramatic irony, a form of literary irony in which the audience knows more than the characters do. This can create tension and pathos as characters ignorant of the full significance of their own actions carry on, ignorant not only of what they’re doing but of the consequences they will face later. Shakespearian and especially Greek tragedy are rich in dramatic irony, as are modern horror and suspense movies—as exemplified by Hitchcock’s famous example of the bomb under the table.

But dramatic irony, as Jay suggests, becomes a plot contrivance when the ignorance of the characters is maintained unnaturally. The best example I can think of is “Downton Abbey.” Earlier seasons of the show produce dramatic irony much more organically, but as the show goes on and becomes more obviously a high-toned soap opera, characters get into increasingly melodramatic situations and increasingly refuse to talk to each other about them. Most of the show’s problems could be resolved with one conversation, a conversation the characters will not have.*

This is particularly the case with any plot involving Mr Bates, whose aloof taciturnity is taken to a ridiculous extreme when he is accused of murder—among other things. He has numerous opportunities simply to explain to someone else what is going on and why he is acting in the way that he is, and he doesn’t.** Over and over, “Downton Abbey” prolongs the drama artificially in exactly the same way.

For dramatic irony done not just well but brilliantly, watch Blood Simple, the Coen brothers’ first film. The film has four primary characters: Abby, the young wife of a shady nightclub owner; Marty, the husband; Ray, a friend with whom Abby begins an affair; and Loren Visser, a private detective. Briefly, Marty hires Visser to look into what Abby and Ray are up to and, when he finds out, pays Visser to kill them. Visser double-crosses and shoots Marty, and Ray discovers the body.

Without giving too much away, as the rest of the movie unfolds:

  • Ray thinks that Abby killed Marty (she didn’t) and decides that he has to cover for her

  • Abby thinks Marty is still alive and out to get her (he isn’t) and decides to fight back

  • Visser thinks he has gotten away with his crime (he hasn’t) until he realizes he has left evidence in Marty’s nightclub, which he thinks Ray and Abby have (they don’t), and decides to eliminate them to cover his tracks

All of the characters operate in ignorance of the whole picture—with the possible exception of Visser, who makes mistakes despite knowing more than Ray and Abby—and make their decisions based on what they think they know, which is often wrong. This ignorance continues right up until the final lines of the film, following a climactic confrontation in which the two surviving characters can’t see each other. And it is unbearably suspenseful rather than, like “Downton Abbey” or “The Acolyte,” merely frustrating.

Dramatic irony is a powerful device, and it’s a shame it isn’t better used. Writers hoping to create tension in their stories through the ignorance or misperceptions of their characters would do well to revisit a movie like Blood Simple, some of Elmore Leonard’s crime fiction, or, even better, go back to Aeschylus and Sophocles.

* This is, I think, part of what makes Maggie Smith’s Dowager Countess such a breath of fresh air whenever she appears, as she actually says what she means.

** My wife and I refer to these as “Shan’t” moments, as in “I could resolve this with a simple explanation, but—” turning one’s head away, “shan’t.

Tim Powers on chronocentrism and conformism

For the last week I’ve been reading Tim Powers’s 1987 pirate fantasy On Stranger Tides, a book that everyone seems to agree Pirates of the Caribbean couldn’t have come into existence without—even before Disney optioned the title for the fourth one—and that got me watching Powers interviews on YouTube again.

In this interview with a channel called Through a Glass Darkly, host Sean Patrick Hazlett asks, as a wrap-up, “What advice would you give to new writers?” Powers responds with a list of “the old, traditional advice, which is solid-rock true,” and that I have to add is still good advice for people who’ve been writing for years or decades. Here’s the first part of his answer in bullet-list form:

  • “Read very widely, read outside of your field, read outside of your time, don’t restrict yourself simply to stuff published since 2000 or 1980 or whatever. You don’t want to be chronocentric.

  • “Have as wide a base as you can, chronologically and [in] subject matter. Read mysteries, read plays, read poetry, non-fiction, et cetera.

  • “Write a lot. Set yourself a schedule and keep to it. Even if it’s only a thousand words a month, stick to it. Use guilt and fear as motivators. Tell yourself you’re worth nothing if you don’t get the writing done.

  • “Get it in front of editors, send it out. Don’t get trapped in a revision whirlpool. A story doesn’t exist until an editor has looked at it. It’s like Schrödinger’s cat.”

He follows this up with an elaboration on his first point of advice:

Don’t be a conformist. Don’t bend your writing to fit what you see as trends, even if they seem to be mandatory trends. They’re not.
— Tim Powers

Okay, all that’s true. Then I would say—goes back to chronocentrism—don’t be a conformist. Don’t try to clock what’s selling now, because even if you could correctly gauge that and then write a story, it’s very likely not to be what’s selling now by the time your story comes out. Don’t be a conformist. Don’t bend your writing to fit what you see as trends, even if they seem to be mandatory trends. They’re not. If you say, “Oh this is what they’re buying now. This is what you have to do now in order to get published. There’s some boxes you have to check.” No. Be different. Be a nonconformist. Because if you go along that conformist road, even if it gets published your work is just going to be one more of that generic type, and what’s the value in that? So I would say, ignore trends.

Hear hear.

Powers has said versions of this before—here’s a blog post I wrote last October based on a similar interview conversation—but it’s stated more firmly and in more detail here.

I especially like Powers’s framing of the problem in terms of “chronocentrism.” As I recently told one of my classes, the most neglected form of diversity in our diversity-obsessed age is chronological diversity. Powers is steeped in CS Lewis and loves his non-fiction, so he’s probably got Lewis’s concept of “chronological snobbery” and passages like this from “On the Reading of Old Books” at the back of his mind:

Every age has its own outlook. It is especially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. . . . None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books.

For a similar concept, see Alan Jacobs’s “temporal bandwith.”

Memory Hold-the-Door

I ended the very first John Buchan June a few years ago with Buchan’s final, posthumously published novel, the thrilling, beautiful, and poignant Sick Heart River. It only seems right, now that I’ve read it, to end this year’s event with the non-fiction book Buchan was composing at the same time as that final Sir Edward Leithen adventure. The book is his memoir, completed, like Sick Heart River, only a short time before he died in early 1940: Memory Hold-the-Door.

Memoir is the best word to describe this book, but is still not quite right. Though billed as Buchan’s autobiography by his publisher, Buchan himself described the book this way in the short, pointed preface: “This book is a journal of certain experiences, not written in the experiencing moment, but rebuilt out of memory.” He confesses that he had considered having the book privately published, but changed his mind when he “reflected that a diary of a pilgrimage, a record of the effect upon one mind of the mutations of life, might interest others who travel a like road.” It was, accordingly, published under the title Pilgrim’s Way in the United States, where it became a favorite book of the young John F Kennedy.

Memory Hold-the-Door is easily summarized. Beginning with his childhood and youth in Scotland, where he spent much formative time outdoors (“My earliest recollections,” he writes, “are not of myself but of my environment”), through his student days at Oxford, his political career in South Africa, Britain, and Canada, his government work in intelligence and propaganda during the war years, and his career in journalism, publishing, and fiction, Buchan narrates his life story in broad outline, with many episodes and memories rendered in striking and beautiful writing. His fiction’s strongest qualities are much in evidence, especially his descriptions of beloved landscapes and in his character sketches of family, friends, colleagues, and comrades, to all of whom he renders the same service as he does the natural world.

What most struck me about Memory Hold-the-Door was its tone. Even before the narrative has taken Buchan from Oxford to the veldts and kopjes of South Africa, a sharp, persistent elegiac note has entered. One realizes quickly how many of those Buchan knew and worked with as a young man were fated to die in the First World War. This book, even though it is a grateful remembrance of a good life by an uncomplaining man, is marked throughout by loss. His publisher and one of his best friends, Tommie Nelson, died on the Western Front, as did his brother Alastair. Of Nelson he writes:

I can recall many mannerisms of his, but it is only by an effort of thought, for they do not run to meet the memory. His presence warmed and lit up so big a region of life that in thinking of him one is overwhelmed by the multitude of things that he made better by simply existing among them. If you remove a fire from a hearth, you will remember the look, not so much of the blaze itself, as of the whole room in its pleasant glow.

And of his brother Alastair:

I remember that when I occasionally ran across him during the last stages of the battle of the Somme I thought him the only cheerful thing in a grey world. He managed to get the best out of everybody, and won a general affection because he himself gave out so much of it. I wonder if the future historian will realise how much of the strength of the British army was due to the boys of twenty who brought the kindly ardour of youth into the business of war and died before they could lose their freshness.

And those were only the dearest lost to him among the many war dead he knew.

His reflection on his brother’s loss points as well to Buchan’s perspective—even when eulogizing men who have been gone a quarter century by the time of his writing, he never loses sight of the big picture their lives and deaths formed a small part of. This in itself adds to the poignancy of the book, as not only the losses but the civilization-shaking repercussions of the war bothered him, filling him with forebodings that would all too often turn out to be right. Even the end of the war, superficially a cause of celebration, augured trouble: “My reason indeed warned me that there was little cause for optimism. The War, the vastest disordering since the breakdown of the Pax Romana, must be followed by decades of suffering and penury.”

But I don’t want to give too dour an impression of this book. Though tinged throughout with loss and sadness, it is still a fundamentally joyful book. Buchan writes warmly of his childhood; of his work; of the books he has enjoyed (e.g. Pilgrim’s Progress, Robert Louis Stevenson, from whom the title comes) and the historical figures he admires (e.g. Montrose, Lee, Cromwell, Sir Walter Scott); of the many places he was privileged to live, in all of which he finds something lovely; and, though this is not a deeply intimate book, of his family. It is striking what a variety of famous people he knew: members of parliament, literary men, generals, presidents, kings. If you’re looking for the link between GK Chesterton, TE Lawrence, and Alfred Hitchcock, Buchan is your man. But perhaps the finest tribute, and one I can personally relate to, goes to Susie Grosvenor, whom he married in 1907: “I have been happy in many things, but all my other good fortune has been as dust in the balance compared with the blessing of an incomparable wife.”

Memory Hold-the-Door is also, like the Greek and Roman classics Buchan best loved, highly quotable. Buchan maintains an aphoristic readability throughout. I read the book in Kindle, the only way I could find it, and eventually saved over 150 highlights (which you can peruse here if you want a generous sample of the book). A few favorites:

  • On mining oneself for the purposes of fiction: “A writer must inevitably keep the best of himself for his own secret creative world.”

  • On some writing friends, one of whom will be well known to readers of this blog: “With G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc and Maurice Baring I never differed—except in opinion.”

  • On staying current and/or “relevant”: “My taste was for things old and shabby and unpopular, and I regarded with scepticism whatever was acclaimed as the Spirit of the Age. I was born to be always out of fashion.”

  • On his favorite classical authors (see “relevance” again): “My reading was chiefly in the Latin and Greek classics, which were beyond the caprice of time. I read and re-read Thucydides, for he also had lived among crumbling institutions; Virgil, for he had known both the cruelty and the mercy of life; Plato, above all, for he was seraphically free from the pettinesses which were at the root of our sorrows.”

  • On technological progress as exemplified by the First World War: “The War had shown that our mastery over physical forces might end in a nightmare, that mankind was becoming like an overgrown child armed with deadly weapons, a child with immense limbs and a tiny head.”

  • On the bind intellectuals of the 1920s had put themselves in: “It was a difficult time for those who called themselves intellectuals. They found themselves living among the fears and uncertainties of the Middle Ages, without the support of the mediaeval faith.”

  • On theory and pure reason: “The drawback to a completely rational mind is that it is apt to assume that what is flawless in logic is therefore practicable.”

  • On writing fiction for its own sake: “I always felt a little ashamed that profit should accrue from what had given me so much amusement. I had no purpose in such writing except to please myself, and even if my books had not found a single reader I would have felt amply repaid.”

  • On the threats facing Christianity in the modern world: “I am of Blake’s view: ‘Man must and will have some religion; if he has not the religion of Jesus he will have the religion of Satan, and will erect a synagogue of Satan.’ There have been high civilisations in the past which have not been Christian, but in the world as we know it I believe that civilisation must have a Christian basis, and must ultimately rest on the Christian Church. To-day the Faith is being attacked, and the attack is succeeding.”

  • On the perseverance of Christianity despite it all: “The Faith is an anvil which has worn out many hammers.”

These are drawn pretty much at random from my Kindle highlights. I could provide dozens more.

There are also many wonderful anecdotes. Here’s one from the First World War regarding General Sir Douglas Haig, whom Buchan worked with and admired but who apparently didn’t have the common touch:

He had not Sir John French’s gift of speaking to the chance-met soldier. Once, I remember, he tried it. There was a solitary private by the roadside, whom he forced himself to address. Haig: “Well, my man, where did you start the war?” Private (pale to the teeth): “I swear to God, sir, I never started no war.”

And another in which a fan of Buchan’s thrillers is disappointed by his historical novels:

These were serious books and they must have puzzled many of the readers who were eager to follow the doings of Richard Hannay or Dickson McCunn. That is the trouble with an author who only writes to please himself; his product is not standardised, and the purchaser is often disappointed. I once had a letter from an Eton boy who, having a taste for a bustling yarn, was indignant at anything of mine which did not conform to that pattern. He earnestly begged me to “pull myself together.”

But as mentioned above, and by Buchan’s design, Memory Hold-the-Door is not an exhaustive autobiography. Buchan states at the outset that he does not intend to use his memoir for the things most memoirists do, especially today. There is no score-settling, no self-justification, no gossip. He writes only of the dead, and then only to praise them—especially those he believes have been unjustly forgotten or remembered for the wrong reasons. Reviewers since its first publication have remarked on its “curiously oblique” approach, on what it covers in detail and what it glances across in a paragraph—or less. Buchan himself, though he states with some embarrassment that he found his manuscript “brazenly egotistic,” disappears from the narrative for long stretches. He prefers always to write about others.

“That said,” remarks biographer Andrew Lownie, “it is a very revealing book, both consciously and unconsciously.” As I’ve already suggested, even where Buchan says little about himself, his character comes through clearly—friendly, pious (in the Roman sense), hardworking, well educated, charitable toward all, firmly rooted in a place loved lifelong, of disciplined and expansive mind, and above all openminded but of firm conviction. The book’s final line offers a strong unifying theme: “Dogmatism gives place to questioning, and questioning in the end to prayer.”

In early February 1940, shortly after Buchan completed both Memory Hold-the-Door and Sick Heart River and having repeatedly refused the chance at a second five-year term as Governor General of Canada when his term ended in August, he suffered a stroke while shaving, fell, and struck his head. Within a few days he was dead, and widely and affectionately mourned. These two final books, the memoir and the novel, would appear over the course of that year. Memory Hold-the-Door sold out almost immediately and was repeatedly reprinted during the war years and afterward.

Though eventually Buchan’s fiction, especially The Thirty-Nine Steps, became his most lasting legacy, his memoir offers a fine portrait of a life honorably and gratefully lived. Memory Hold-the-Door is both intensely and poignantly self-reflective but also generous. It is that strangest and rarest of literary beasts, the humble memoir.

* * * * *

Once again I’m sorry to see John Buchan June end. This concludes the third year in a row that I’ve done this, and I’ve enjoyed it more every time. What started as a bit of a lark, a relief from some of the early summer corporate activism that eats up our screens during my birth month, has turned into a tradition that I relish and look forward to. I hope these reviews—including some of Buchan’s non-fiction for the first time this year—have piqued your interest in his work, and that you’ll check at least a little bit of it out in the coming year.

Thanks as always for reading. Until next June!

On artistic innovations that don’t make art better

For years now I’ve wanted to write a blog post about the Coke machines on my college’s campus. They’re sleek, modern, and high tech, with WiFi-integrated chip card readers and LED lights and a system of robotic conveyor belts that whisk your drink out of the rack to dispense it in a rotating receptacle with its own recessed lighting.

They also don’t work very well. All that innovation has resulted in more points of failure than the rudimentary, purely mechanical Coke machines I grew up with. One of those might occasionally have eaten your change. These can break in at least twenty ways. I’ve counted. Technological sophistication has actually made the machines worse for their original purpose.

Here’s a quotation I’ve been meaning to share for a while, a passage from poet Dana Gioia’s essay “Notes on the New Formalism,” which was published in 1999 but that I first ran across last year:

These young poets have grown up in a literary culture so removed from the predominantly oral traditions of metrical verse that they can no longer hear it accurately. Their training in reading and writing has been overwhelmingly visual not aural, and they have never learned to hear the musical design a poem executes. For them poems exist as words on a page rather than sounds in the mouth and ear. While they have often analyzed poems, they have rarely memorized and recited them. Nor have they studied and learned poems by heart in foreign languages where sound patterns are more obvious to nonnative speakers. Their often extensive critical training in textual analysis never included scansion, and their knowledge of even the fundamentals of prosody is haphazard (though theory is less important in practice than mastering the craft of versification). Consequently, they have neither much practical nor theoretical training in the way sounds are organized as poetry. Ironically this very lack of training makes them deaf to their own ineptitude. Full of confidence, they rely on instincts they have never developed. Magisterially they take liberties with forms whose rudimentary principles they misconstrue. Every poem reveals some basic confusion about its own medium. Some misconceptions ultimately prove profitable for art. Not this one.

The failures of both modern poetry and modern Coke machines stem from a fundamental misapprehension of their purpose—what they’re for, how they’re supposed to work. The basics are neglected. Not for nothing does the phrase mechanical failure apply in both instances. What you end up with is pointless sophistication (cf. Jacques Barzun’s definition of “decadence”) that often doesn’t even work.

A silly comparison, probably, but one that is broadly applicable.

Concepts and ideas in the novel

From critic and essayist Joseph Epstein’s The Novel, Who Needs It? an apologia for the novel as a form:

Create a concept and reality leaves the room.
— José Ortega y Gasset

Concepts have their value, but they tend to explain more than they can justify. From Karl Marx’s class-struggle to Max Weber’s linking the rise of capitalism to the rise of Protestantism to Sigmund Freud’s Oedipus Complex, conceptual thinking tends invariably to be both overly ambitious and sketchy, leaving out crucial aspects of human experience, and thereby necessarily highly simplifying. “Create a concept,” Ortega wrote, “and reality leaves the room.”

What Epstein calls “concepts” could also be called “theories” or, more precisely, “ideologies,” though the line between all of these is blurry. Epstein continues this paragraph with an observation on the similarly limiting effects of specialization:

Scientists, historians, politicians, economists, and poets all perceived the world, as Michael Oakeshott noted, through what he termed their separate “mode of experience,” but for him each of these modes was partial, incomplete, only part of the story. Oakeshott also felt that the whole story was not to be encompassed through any discrete mode of learning, even through philosophy, with its pretensions to be architectonic.

The novel, Epstein argues, has an important role in culture because of its ability to create comprehensive imaginative visions of human experience informed by the author’s understanding of human nature, something the arts and sciences tend to approach from only one angle.

Later, Epstein contrasts the ideological novel, the novel of “concepts,” with “the novel of ideas”:

[W]hile all serious novels are ultimately about ideas, the best novels always put facts before ideas.
— Joseph Epstein

Of the various forms the novel has taken-the family chronicle, the picaresque, the satire, the novel of ideas—the last, the novel of ideas, may seem a contradiction. I say a contradiction because, first, while all serious novels are ultimately about ideas, the best novels always put facts before ideas. . . . When ideas are at the forefront in fiction, when ideas dictate fact, characters seem diminished, plot suffers, and reality leaves not only the room but the novel.

That is, ideas and theory have to be expressed in “facts,” as characters, places, events, deeds, and choices. Epstein quotes the critic Northrop Frye: “An interest in ideas and theoretical statements is alien to the genius of the novel proper, where the technical problem is to dissolve all theory into personal relationships.”

Which is not to say that ideas have no place in fiction, just that they must take concrete form if they are to work as fiction. Epstein praises Dostoevsky and other 19th century Russian novelists as the masters of this form of philosophical storytelling. Certainly there have been many poor attempts to write novels of ideas, and the more the ideas veer into “concepts” or a systematized ideology—whether of the Dalton Trumbo or Ayn Rand varieties, though we are of course afflicted with a lot of strongly ideological fiction today—the more the storytelling suffers.

Food for thought. I’m enjoying The Novel, Who Needs It? and if I’m able I’ll have a full review when I’m done.

Keeping adventure within hailing distance

John Buchan on the quality that makes a story “romantic”—i.e. an adventure—in Sir Walter Scott: His Life and Works:

Scott transforms life, as is the duty of a great artist. He enlarges our view and makes the world at once more solemn and more sunlit, but it remains a recognisable world, with all the old familiar landmarks. He has that touch of the prosaic in him without which romance becomes only a fairy tale and tragedy a high heeled strutting.

That’s Buchan on Scott specifically, but Buchan continues with a more general observation on storytelling:

 
For the kernel of romance is contrast—beauty and valour flowering in unlikely places, the heavenly rubbing shoulders with the earthly. All romance, all tragedy, must be within hailing distance of our humdrum lives.
 

Better authors and critics than I have pointed out that, in the best and most vividly realized fantasy or adventure stories, the protagonist ventures away from an ordinary life into one of excitement and danger, in which everything is different. As Buchan lays out here, that link to the ordinary provides contrast and keeps the story grounded no matter how wild it may get.

One thinks immediately of the hobbits who, as Tom Shippey has noted in detail, Tolkien made just about as characteristically English as he could—Bilbo with his tobacco and brass buttons and greedy cousins, Frodo going off to war with his gardener-turned-batman, and the whole Shire with its tavern gossip and detailed genealogies. Or perhaps the Pevensies, swept from a stately—or, to them, boring—country house during an unfortunately ordinary total war through a seemingly ordinary piece of furniture into another world. One could multiply examples. Buchan’s own books offer plenty.

Neglecting contrast will result in stories that are all weirdness, all bleakness, or mere chaos. Think of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies’ descent into the maelstrom. The first film had an actual toehold in reality that made the intrusion of a ghost ship, voodoo, and cursed Aztec gold exhilarating, but by the third film the fantasy elements had completely overwhelmed anything “humdrum”—Will Turner’s blacksmithing, say—and this combined with its visual grotesquery robbed the series of what made it feel like an adventure in the first place.

Carefully providing contrast, on the other hand, will not only keep the reader grounded but suggest to him that adventure—the dangerous, the uncanny, even the “heavenly”—is nearer to him than he may have thought.

On Ian Fleming’s prose rhythm

Ian Fleming (1908-64)

I’ve made the case for the strength of Ian Fleming’s writing in the James Bond novels before, usually emphasizing his concrete word choice, his concise and vivid descriptions, and his strong, direct, active narration. These are all characteristic virtues of his style. But one I haven’t paid much direct attention to is the cadence or rhythm of his prose—in poetry, meter.

This week I started reading Casino Royale to my wife before bed every night. I’ve read Casino Royale several times before and even listened to the excellent audiobook narrated by Dan Stevens, but this is my first time reading it aloud myself. Going through it in this way, I noticed Fleming’s attention to rhythm immediately.

Here’s a paragraph from the first chapter. Bond, undercover at a French casino, has just received a telegram from M via a paid agent in Jamaica. He’s thinking about the process of relaying information to headquarters when this paragraph begins:

Some of this background to his cable passed through Bond’s mind. He was used to oblique control and rather liked it. He felt it feather-bedded him a little, allowed him to give or take an hour or two in his communications with M. He knew that this was probably a fallacy, that probably there was another member of the Service at Royale-les-Eaux who was reporting independently, but it did give the illusion that he wasn’t only 150 miles across the Channel from that deadly office building near Regent’s Park, being watched and judged by those few cold brains that made the whole show work. Just as Fawcett, the Cayman Islander in Kingston, knew that if he bought that Morris Minor outright instead of signing the hire-purchase agreement, someone in London would probably know and want to know where the money had come from.

Fleming shows a lot of his skills here, including variety of word choice and sentence length. Both of those tend to be treated as boring mechanical aspects of writing (“Vary your sentence length” is a pretty rote piece of writing advice that is seldom elaborated upon) but, as this paragraph should show, both skills are crucial to rhythm and, ultimately, mood.

The rhythm of the words and phrases controls the pace of the paragraph, which rises and falls. It begins with two short, simple sentences followed by a slightly longer, slightly more complicated one expanding on the meaning of the first two. Then comes the centerpiece of the paragraph. Read this again, aloud:

 
He knew that this was probably a fallacy, that probably there was another member of the Service at Royale-les-Eaux who was reporting independently, but it did give the illusion that he wasn’t only 150 miles across the Channel from that deadly office building near Regent’s Park, being watched and judged by those few cold brains that made the whole show work.
 

This is a marvelous sentence, 61 words long and almost musical. It starts slowly, building momentum as Bond considers his situation before plunging into a downhill run that begins at the conjunction but and slows again, ominously, in the final dependent clause.

Here’s where word choice comes in. Fleming didn’t write poetry but he understood how to use its effects. The long vowels in the last several words, almost every word of that last clause—“those few cold brains who made the whole show work”—as well as the heavy emphasis the most important words require metrically—“those few cold brains who made the whole show work”—have a braking effect, slowing the reader and bringing him back down to the reality of Bond’s situation. Right alongside Bond.

All of which points to the purpose of this kind of rhythm: setting tone and mood. Narratively speaking, little happens in this paragraph. Bond stands holding a telegram slip, thinking. A lesser writer would turn this into pure exposition. But the way Fleming narrates Bond’s thinking imparts to the reader what it feels like to be Bond in this situation.

The same is true of the entire chapter. In Casino Royale’s first chapter, Bond 1) realizes he is tired, 2) receives a message, 3) sends a message, and 4) goes to bed. But through Fleming’s writing, we get exhaustion, self-loathing, a degree of paranoia (who wants to be “watched and judged” by “cold brains,” even those on your own side?), and a great deal of unexplained danger.

Here’s how the first chapter ends. Read this aloud with these things in mind:

His last action was to slip his right hand under the pillow until it rested under the butt of the .38 Colt Police Positive with the sawn barrel. Then he slept, and with the warmth and humour of his eyes extinguished, his features relapsed into a taciturn mask, ironical, brutal, and cold.

Great stuff, and subtly done.

Equipped to be a novelist

From John Buchan’s Sir Walter Scott: His Life and Works, as Buchan narrates Scott’s turn from the craft of poetry and long ballads to historical fiction in his early forties:

 
Few men have been better equipped than Scott for the task of novelist. To begin with, he had been from his earliest youth a skilled storyteller. Again, from his huge antiquarian reading, he was perfectly equipped for the reproduction of historical scenes and an older life. Moreover, his easy friendliness with every class and condition of society, his love of the ordinary man, his quick perception of everyday humours and oddities, made him an adept in the drawing of character.
 

Writers—especially beginning writers—often worry whether or not they have what it takes to write novels. What Buchan writes of Scott is not a bad description of the fundamental tools, foremost among them a built-in talent for telling stories and the desire to do so. (It’s also a decent description of Buchan himself.)

Scott’s deep love of history provided plenty of raw material for stories and his familiarity with people—both through his “easy friendliness” with them as well as his work in the law—kept his stories true to life. But had he lacked a natural disposition and knack for telling stories, these latter qualities would have been moot.

Buchan wrote two biographies of Scott. This passage comes from the first, shorter one, originally published as The Man and the Book in 1925. I’m reading a nice recent paperback edition from Luath Press, a Scottish publisher. Buchan published a longer biography titled simply Sir Walter Scott in 1932. That one is available for free from Project Gutenberg.

Scruton on what children can teach us about art

From the late Sir Roger Scruton’s documentary “Why Beauty Matters”:

 
Art needs creativity, and creativity is about sharing. It is a call to others to see the world as the artist sees it. That is why we find beauty in the naïve art of children. Children are not giving us ideas in the place of creative images, nor are they wallowing in ugliness. They are trying to affirm the world as they see it and to share what they feel. Something of the child’s pure delight in creation survives in every true work of art.
— Sir Roger Scruton
 

Scruton makes this aside as a point of contrast with modern art—which is intentionally insular, confrontational, transgressive, and over-intellectual if not ideological—but in doing so he makes a broader point about what art is and what it’s for. This description of children’s art is also honestly and accurately observed.

I’ve thought of this passage many times over the last few weeks, ever since my eldest son eagerly presented me with a picture he had drawn. It was a pencil and highlighter drawing that showed me holding my youngest son at the dinner table—a picture of his dad and one of his little brothers. It was drawn from life without my noticing, and joy he took both in drawing and giving it to me, the joy in and care taken over the details, including the stubble of my beard, and the simple, straightforward, honest love in the picture itself have stuck with me. My kids have drawn many things for me, but this one in particular struck me as a clear example of Scruton’s “pure delight” in “sharing.”

Last week I tacked it to the wall of my office at school. May any art I create be motivated as purely as my son’s.

“Why Beauty Matters” is worth your while, as I wrote here almost four years ago following Scruton’s death. You can watch the whole thing on Vimeo here.

Wildcat trailer reaction

Maya Hawke as Flannery O’Connor in Wildcat

As I noted in my 2023 movie year-in-review, Wildcat is one of the films I’ve been looking forward to this year. Though it was completed and premiered at a film festival last year I hadn’t heard any news about its distribution or release until yesterday, when a great trailer appeared on YouTube.

Wildcat takes place over a short stretch of the early 1950s, when young writer Flannery O’Connor (Maya Hawke) moves back home to Milledgeville, Georgia and is diagnosed with lupus, the same disease that had killed her father when she was sixteen. While struggling with her illness and its severe effects she tries to sell her first novel, a searing Southern gothic religious fable called Wise Blood. Like her short stories, it’s deeply Catholic and Southern and poignant in the sense of sharp, cutting. It’s a hard sell.

It’s unclear from the trailer precisely how much of O’Connor’s life Wildcat covers, but there are scenes suggesting her time among the literary elite in the northeast in the late 1940s, after she had graduated from the Iowa Writers’ Workshop and when she was laboring over Wise Blood. The trailer suggests a strong contrast between the world O’Connor leaves behind and the clay-banked roads and nosy church ladies back home in Georgia—a contrast O’Connor was certainly aware of and wrote about.

Perhaps the most intriguing thing in the trailer are the scenes from several of her short stories—”Parker’s Back,” “The Life You Save May Be Your Own,” “Revelation,” and especially “Good Country People”—in which O’Connor and her mother Regina (Laura Linney) play major characters like the cynical Hulga or the self-righteous Mrs Turpin. Catching even short glimpses of scenes I’ve imagined many times—a crowded doctor’s office waiting room, a Bible salesman running across a field carrying a prosthetic leg—got me excited in a way I haven’t felt for a movie in a while. Apparently these are intricately intertwined with the events of O’Connor’s real life. I’m curious to see how this works, especially since it’s so easy for a film about a writer to slip into the biographical fallacy (or what CS Lewis called The Personal Heresy): the idea that everything a writer writes is based on his or her actual experiences.

But I’m most pleased to see that Wildcat takes O’Connor’s Christianity seriously. Apparently Ethan Hawke, who directed and co-wrote the film, was inspired to make it when he read the Prayer Journal that O’Connor kept as a writing student in Iowa. O’Connor, in addition to being a brilliant writer, was prickly, hard-edged, had a chip on her shoulder as an outsider in the postwar literary world, and was fervently orthodox and devout. Her faith suffuses her work not only coincidentally but by design. Wildcat’s trailer manages to evoke all of this. Here’s hoping that the full film delivers.

A few other notes:

  • The Southern accents sound pretty good. O’Connor was originally from Savannah and, though recordings of her remind me a lot of my paternal grandmother, an Athens native, O’Connor’s speech has some peculiarities that must be down to her roots, Savannah having some distinctive dialect features even by Southern standards. Listen to her read “A Good Man is Hard to Find” sometime.

  • I’m interested to see how the film explores what some people perceive as O’Connor’s cruelty (“Sometimes I feel like you’re trying to stick pins in your readers,” her editor says in the trailer). The question of just how unpleasant a writer can or should make the reader feel in order to make a point has concerned me for a long time.

  • Maya Hawke looks a lot more like O’Connor than I would have guessed was possible based on what I’ve seen of her in “Stranger Things” and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Kudos to her and the film’s hair and makeup folks.

  • I like the cinematography a lot. It’s clearly digital but has some creative composition choices and lens work—e.g. the way the focus and bokeh fall off at the edges off the frame, which reminds me of The Batman. A distinctive look will probably help support O’Connor’s story and give it the otherworldly feel it will probably need.

  • Wildcat was apparently shot mostly in Kentucky rather than Georgia. From what I can see in the trailer it looks like a good stand-in, though it’s funny to me that, with so many movies shooting in Georgia as a substitute for more expensive locales, such a Georgia-centric story wound up being shot elsewhere.

It’s striking, having watched the trailer several times now, how present O’Connor’s crutches are. The final “coming soon” shot of O’Connor at the family mailbox, which has been one of the only images available for a while, has them plainly visible but I never noticed them. And there they are behind her as she types up a manuscript or struggles even to walk around the house. Some early film festival reviews I’ve read suggest that Wildcat is not just a story about a writer publishing a novel but a meditation on suffering, the threat of death, and God’s grace. I’m here for it.

Wildcat is currently scheduled for a big-city release on May 3 with wider availability to follow, though I haven’t been able to find any details about that yet. Hopefully we can look forward to a time in the late spring or early summer when we can catch Flannery O’Connor in theatres.