Sade Was Very Fond of Dogs

From Roland Barthes’ “Life of Sade,” a short biography of The Marquis de Sade. Translated from the French by Richard Miller.  Read the entire essay at Supervert (or here over the next few days, parceled out over 22 sections)—

16. Sade was very fond of dogs, spaniels, and setters; he had them at Miolans, asked for them at Vincennes. Through what moral (or worse: virile) law should the greatest of subversions exclude minor affection, that for animals?

Sade, the Social Joker

From Roland Barthes’ “Life of Sade,” a short biography of The Marquis de Sade. Translated from the French by Richard Miller.  Read the entire essay at Supervert (or here over the next few days, parceled out over 22 sections)—

15. In the social game of his time, doubly complicated because — rare in history — it was both synchronic and diachronic, displaying the (apparently immobile) tableau of classes under the Ancien Régime and class changes (under the Revolution), Sade was extremely mobile: a social joker, able to occupy any niche in the class system; Lord of LaCoste, he was supplanted in Mlle Colet’s affections by a bourgeois, a collector of rents, who presented the actress with a magnificent sultan (a dressing table); later, a member of the Piques sector, he assumes the socially neutral figure of a man of letters, a dramatist; struck from the list of émigrés and owing to a confusion of first names that exists today, he was able (or at least his family was) to appear as he wished according to the varied moments of History on this turnstile of social class. He honors the sociological notion of social mobility, but in a ludic sense; he moves up and down on the social scale like a bottle imp; a reflection, once again in the socio-economic meaning of the term, he makes this reflection not the imitation or product of a determination, but the unselfconscious game of a mirror. In this carrousel of roles, one fixed point: manners, way of life, which were always aristocratic.

“I’m One of Those Writers Who Gropes Her Way into a Story” — Biblioklept Interviews Joan Leegant About Her Novel Wherever You Go

Joan Leegant’s latest novel Wherever You Go tells the story of three Americans in Israel whose lives intersect against the backdrop of Jewish extremism and the tension between democracy and terror. Wherever You Go is Joan’s second book; her first, An Hour in Paradise, a collection of stories that grapple with religion and identity, won the PEN/New England Book Award and was a finalist for the National Jewish Book Award. Joan was a lawyer and taught at Harvard for eight years before seriously pursuing a career in fiction writing.  She splits her time between Boston and Israel, where she’s the visiting writer at Bar-Ilan University in Tel Aviv. Wherever You Go and An Hour in Paradise are both available from W.W. Norton. You can learn more about her and her work at her website. Joan was kind enough to talk to me about her writing over a series of emails.

Biblioklept: How did Wherever You Go come about? Can you talk about the genesis behind the plot?

Joan Leegant: I knew only a couple of things about the book when I began to write it: first, that I wanted to write a novel about Israel, and second, that I wanted to write about Americans in Israel, specifically American Jews. The impulse for that is pretty straightforward. I’ve spent a lot of my adult life either being in Israel, or thinking or reading or worrying or despairing about Israel. In fact, my adult life seems to have been bookended by long stays in Israel. I first went there from Massachusetts in 1978 as a young lawyer for what I thought would be six months; I stayed 3 years. Flash-forward 30 years when I was invited to be a visiting writer for a semester at an Israeli university that, lucky for me, keeps inviting me back.

So the experience of American Jews in Israel interests me — why they go there, what they do when they get there – and that’s what I wanted to write about. Some of that curiosity is personal in that I lived there for a time and thought I would stay but didn’t. So part of the impulse to write is the “what if” that fiction writers traffic in: what if I had stayed?

But I learned through writing the book that I have strong feelings, passions, related to the experience of Americans in Israel that aren’t strictly personal. Americans have been among the most notorious Jewish extremists in Israel. Americans also comprise a segment of the radical settlers. Their numbers are small, but some Israelis hold a stereotype of American Jews in Israel as fanatics. Obviously there are plenty of American Jews living there who are not fanatics of any sort. But I was interested in exploring those who were.

There’s another source of this curiosity, which someone reading the book would be hard-pressed to guess. And it’s this: I was a college student in the late 1960s,  during the heyday of SDS (Students for a Democratic Society), the Weathermen, the anti-war movement, the push to get ROTC off campus. At my university there were student take-overs of university buildings, faculty protest strikes. My school was no Kent State, but I remember the president of the university calling in the National Guard at some point. And who was making all this happen, yelling into the megaphones on college campuses and morphing from heiress Patty Hearst into the SLA’s Tanya with a machine gun? Young twenty-somethings convinced of the rightness of their cause. As a cautious, careful person, I was intrigued by their passion. Often their cause was just even if their methods were violent or wrong-headed. This came back to me while I was writing Wherever You Go. 

But I didn’t know any of this when I began the novel. I’m one of those writers who gropes her way into a story. I don’t think anything through in advance. I don’t even like to think much about a story while I’m writing it. It’s like I have to turn off my head to write. I don’t know if that’s because of my legal training (linear, organized, concerned with relevance, and in my case, probably a bit rigid) or if it’s one of those left-brain right-brain things. Whatever the reason, I’ve learned to trust my instincts and have faith that something will emerge if I’ve got a reasonably promising premise or situation or character to work with. I wrote short stories for a long time before attempting a novel, and that turned out to be good practice for learning to let the story run the show. So I began Wherever You Go with some characters, went where they led me. Not accidentally, they led me straight into my own passions.

The plot emerged from the characters. Fairly early on, I knew that one of them, Aaron, was going to do something violent. I wrote the scene where he commits the violent act, and for a long time I kept that scene as a prologue. I thought I might structure the book so that the reader knew about the act from the start. Eventually it occurred to me that keeping it as the prologue had been a kind of place-holder for me, a helpful signpost: all things in the book needed to either lead up to that event or be the aftermath of the event. Once all that was written, I moved the event into the body of the book.

I also intuited at a point early on that the lives of the three main characters would intersect around this violent act, though I didn’t know how that would come about — how or why their paths would cross — until I wrote it all out. This enabled me to envision a structure. It also allowed me to use points of view I felt reasonably proficient in, which were three third-person narratives. From all this — the characters, the specific event, the structure, the points of view — a plot emerged.

Biblioklept: That structure gives you the tools to explore these characters, who are all in very different places in their relationships to Israel and the Jewish faith. Obviously, Wherever You Go will appeal to a Jewish audience (American or otherwise), but were you ever worried about alienating certain readers who may feel that your complex approach might sometimes portray Jewish people in a less than flattering light?

JL: I did worry. After I’d finished the book and it was at the publisher, in production, I began contacting Jewish venues about giving book talks. One of the first people I reached was the program director of a prominent Jewish cultural institute. She enthusiastically requested a review copy and then called two weeks later to say that, though she’d loved the book, she couldn’t host me there; her board simply wouldn’t have it—she knew this without even having to ask. This worried me and I thought I’d killed the possibility of a book tour. As you may know, the Jewish community is very well-organized for book events. Nearly every city has an annual book fair where authors speak, and most synagogues regularly host writers for book talks. So when this institute turned me down early in the outreach effort, I thought: uh oh.

But then, remarkably, the opposite happened: Jewish organizations were eager to have me come speak. In the ten months following the initial publication of Wherever You Go, I spoke at 100+ Jewish venues up and down the east coast, in Chicago, California, Seattle. It turns out that a great many American Jews are worried about the same things I’m worried about; namely, the rise of extremism in Israel, the power and influence of the settlement movement, and the drift to the right in Israeli politics and policy. Like me, many are deeply devoted to Israel and care passionately about its survival; yet we also believe there must be a Palestinian state, and that the Palestinian narrative must be heard as well as the Jewish narrative.

Who were these audiences who turned out for my book talks? They weren’t young lefties or radicals associated with, for instance, the movement promoting sanctions or divestment. They were mostly middle-aged women and men who identify strongly as Jews and Zionists but are worried about where Israel is headed and dismayed about the hijacking of the Jewish tradition by those with fundamentalist views. Instead of being angry that I was talking about Jewish extremism, they wanted to know more about it, to become better informed. I think this feeling is best captured by a line from the review of Wherever You Go that ran in The Forward, the pre-eminent American Jewish newspaper: “Finally, a novel about Israel by an American Jew that’s written well and without sentimentality.” American Jews don’t want an update to Exodus. Certainly those who are knowledgeable about Israel, who’ve been there or follow the news, want to read books that depict the country, as it is today, with more nuance.

Which is not to say that some people didn’t get upset with me. I got some nasty reviews, most which I’m pretty sure were motivated not by literary critique but political animus. One early reviewer for a well-regarded Jewish newspaper was startlingly honest about his discomfort. In a measured and articulate piece, he praised the book for its insight, character development and accuracy–and then said he just wished I hadn’t written it. Couldn’t I have used my novelistic talent to write about something else? he asked. Frankly, I admired him, and still do, for being up front about his personal reaction instead of feeling the need to find a reason to rip the book apart.

I seem to be one of those writers capable of remaining oblivious of her readers while engaged in the act of writing. I didn’t much think about alienating readers or reviewers while I was working on the book. It took me seven years to complete this work, and for a long time I simply didn’t know if I would produce a novel at all, let alone publish one. So that enabled me to sink into the material without giving a lot of thought to its reception. I also didn’t know until quite a ways in that the book would contain such charged material, since I began with character, not theme or idea. This also helped me wade in deep while maintaining a kind of happy ignorance about what I was heading toward, subject-wise.

Nonetheless, I’ve come to understand that writers working out of a particular ethnic or religious or regional tradition often upset members of their own group when their work is released into the wider world. Philip Roth infuriated many in the Jewish community when he published Goodbye, Columbus in 1959 (National Book Award notwithstanding) because of the less than flattering light in which he portrayed his characters. I hope I’m not misremembering, but I believe I once read that Sherman Alexie’s work was not happily received by his fellow Native Americans, for the same reason. I have a friend who is a playwright; she is also Armenian. She told me that with her next play, her first about being Armenian, she expects to be nearly excommunicated. This is part of the territory of writing. You tell the truth, not, to my lights, in order to be outrageous or provocative or snide or even merely clever, but because honesty is essential. Not everyone is going to like it.

Biblioklept: I imagine (if you’ll permit me that license) that although Alexie would like for Indians to read his books and relate, and perhaps your Armenian friend wishes that Armenians will be able to identify the truth in her work, I imagine that both writers hope for audiences beyond their own ethnic backgrounds. Do you worry about your books being perceived as “Jewish books”—not necessarily during the crafting (as you’ve already described), but perhaps in the nitty-gritty of the marketing and so forth?

JL: I don’t worry about that kind of labeling very much, though perhaps I should. Maybe this comes out of initially publishing short stories. The first piece I ever published was about a 75-year-old rabbi thrown into a spiritual crisis when a pair of Siamese twins appears at his morning minyan — he’s been waiting for a sign from the Divine for a long time and wonders if they are it — and it was published in Nimrod, a very fine literary journal out of the University of Tulsa. Several things came out of that publishing experience. First, I learned that, like the old advertisement for Levy’s Rye Bread (“You don’t have to be Jewish to love Levy’s”), you didn’t have to be Jewish to connect to and enjoy a good Jewish story. Now, of course, I knew intellectually that non-Jewish readers could, and did, appreciate intensely Jewish fiction all the time. One of my literary beacons is Bernard Malamud, many of whose short stories are masterpieces, particularly those in The Magic Barrel,another National Book Award winner from the 1950s. When it comes to Jewish stories, you can’t get much more Jewish than that. But I’m no Malamud, and until I began to publish, I didn’t know where my work might end up. When Nimrod took that first piece, I understood that the work had transcended a strictly ethnic readership, something, I might add, that my wonderful teacher, Bret Lott, had already told me. It was Bret who pushed me to send that story out in the first place.

The second thing that came from the Nimrod experience was attending their annual writers conference. The story they took — it’s called “The Tenth”– had won third place in Nimrod’s Katherine Anne Porter Prize; they flew me to Tulsa to accept the prize and participate in the conference, where I also met the judge, novelist Anita Shreve. And what I found while talking to people all weekend and being at an awards dinner with a couple hundred guests was that the truths I was exploring in that story — the wish to connect to the Divine, the terror of having glimpsed the Angel of Death – were indeed universal. This gave me the impetus to keep mining the Jewish vein, and I did the classic obsessed-writer thing: I scribbled potential story titles and opening paragraphs all over the backs of the conference materials on the plane ride home. The prize and the talky weekend were the boosts I needed to say to myself, OK, write those Jewish stories. If they’re good, people will read them.

Marketing that first book as a Jewish book, then, became primarily a business decision, and it was by my doing, my choice. That holds true for my novel, Wherever You Go, as wellAs I mentioned earlier, the Jewish community is well-organized in terms of providing opportunities for writers to get the word out. So the community has been a natural launching pad for my work. I was also very lucky with my first book, An Hour in Paradise, in that it was selected early on for the Barnes & Noble Discover Great New Writers Program and then won the Winship/PEN New England Book Award, two honors that kept it from being perceived as exclusively of interest to Jewish readers.

That said, I’d love both books, and especially the novel, Wherever You Go, to reach more  readers in the broader world. Wherever You Go deals with religious fanaticism, and while the focus is the Arab-Israeli conflict, and Jewish extremism in particular, much of what’s explored in the book applies to any kind of fundamentalism. Which, as we know, is happening all over the globe. What allows people to commit violence in the name of God? What draws certain individuals to embrace the fanatic’s worldview? How do families deal with the rifts within them caused by differences in ideology? These are questions I think a lot of us are asking in this new century. Then there are the themes of forgiveness and atonement and repairing relationships. I’m hoping general readers will be interested in exploring these issues through the lens of fiction.

Biblioklept: What are you working on next? What projects are on your horizon?

JL: I’m working on stories as well as a larger project. I won’t say much about the larger work because I’m still finding my way into it, except to say that it’s set in central Massachusetts in apple growing country. The stories are set in Israel and are about secular Israelis — a departure from the world I explored in my novel, Wherever You GoThe new stories are also a change for me stylistically in that they are written in first-person, which is not a voice or point of view I’ve used much at all. But that’s just how they’re coming out. And you have to go with the demands of the story.

The new stories and new novel are both leaps for me both in terms of subject matter and style (narrative structure, voice, etc.). While that can feel unsettling, it’s also great to be pushing into uncharted territory. I didn’t start writing fiction until I was almost 40; now I’m 60, a slow writer, and hope I have enough time to keep trying new things.

Biblioklept: Have you ever stolen a book?

JL: I am the quintessential good girl and have never stolen anything. I even became a lawyer because I liked rules. The closest I came to stealing a book was when I stayed for a week at the home of friends who were away for a semester and began reading their copy of Francine Prose’s novel, Blue Angel. I was loving the book but wasn’t going to be able to finish before I had to leave. So I took it with me. But I felt so guilty that I bought another copy for myself and slipped back into my friends’ unoccupied house to return theirs. I know they would have given it to me had I asked. But I felt so tarnished by my original conduct that I couldn’t even ask.


Wig Fetishist

From Roland Barthes’ “Life of Sade,” a short biography of The Marquis de Sade. Translated from the French by Richard Miller.  Read the entire essay at Supervert (or here over the next few days, parceled out over 22 sections)—

14. One of Sade’s principal persecutors, Police Lieutenant Sartine, suffered from a psychopathological condition which in a just (equal) society would have entailed his imprisonment on the same footing as his victim: he was a wig fetishist: “His library contained all kinds of wigs of all sizes: he put them on according to the circumstances; among others, he owned a good-luck wig (with five loosely hanging little curls) and a wig for interrogating criminals, a kind of snake headdress called the inexorable” (Lély, II, 90). Aware of the phallic value of the braid, we can imagine how Sade must have longed to clip the toupees of his hated cop.

Contra Mundum Press

Some of the good people at Hyperion, the journal of the Nietzsche Circle, have begun a new publishing venture: Contra Mundum Press. Their first project is a new translation of the Gilgamesh epic by Stuart Kendall; it should be ready next month. In December, CMP is planning to release the first English language translation of Nietzsche’s “Greek Music Drama.” Their list of future titles looks quite promising, and it’s always great to see a new indie publisher making a go of it in an era where print books are being eulogized (with no small level of hyperbole) on what seems to be a weekly basis.

Time, Space, Distortion: Falling Toward a 9/11 Literature

The_Falling_Man

In his essay In the Ruins of the Future,” published in December of 2001, Don DeLillo wrote this about the 9/11 attacks: “The writer wants to understand what this day has done to us. Is it too soon?” His question was both profound and at the same time utterly banal—of course it was too soon to measure the effects of the 9/11 attacks. But could time’s distance somehow sharpen or enrich perspective? DeLillo continues: “We seem pressed for time, all of us. Time is scarcer now. There is a sense of compression, plans made hurriedly, time forced and distorted.”

In retrospect—what with the Bush administration’s ludicrous invasion of Iraq and the power-grab of the Patriot Act—DeLillo’s notation of “plans made hurriedly” seems downright scary. Still, I remember that immediate, overwhelming shock, that paralyzing inertia that had to be overcome. DeLillo wanted—needed—to grapple with this spectacular destruction immediately. David Foster Wallace responded with similar immediacy; the caveat that prefaces his moving essay The View from Mrs. Thompson’s states that the piece was “Written very fast and in what probably qualifies as shock.” The same caveat would also apply neatly to Art Spiegelman’s big, brilliant, messy attempt at cataloging his impressions immediately post-9/11, In the Shadow of No Towers.

In contrast, the trio of 9/11 stories at the heart of Chris Adrian’s short story collection, A Better Angel, all employ distance and distortion—both temporal and spatial—as a means to address the disaster (or inability to address the disaster) of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Adrian’s 9/11 tales (and his works in general, really), ask how one can grieve or attest to death on such a massive, spectacular scale. The victims of the 9/11 attacks forever haunt his protagonists, literally possessing them, demons that can’t let go, forcing the living to wallow in grief. In “The Changeling,” for example, the grief of the attacks is literally measured in blood, as a father repeatedly maims himself as the only means to assuage the terror and confusion of his possessed son. Adrian sets one of the collection’s most intriguing tales, “The Vision of Peter Damien,” in nineteenth-century rural Ohio. This temporal distortion veers into metaphysical territory as the titular Damien, along with other children in his village, become sick, haunted by the victims of 9/11. Adrian’s displaced milieu creates a bizarre cognitive dissonance for his readers, a response that DeLillo also articulated in his 2007 novel Falling Man.

DeLillo initiates the novel as a sort of creation story: “It was not a street anymore but a world, a time and space of falling ash and near night.” The demarcation of this new world recapitulates DeLillo’s initial concern with time and space, but his novel seems ultimately to suggest an inertia, a meaninglessness, or at least the hollow ambiguity of any artistic response. This stands, of course, in sharp contrast to his sense of urgency in his earlier essay. Like the performance artist in the novel who is repeatedly sighted hanging suspended from a harness, there’s a sad anonymity in the background of Falling Man: the artist hangs as static witness to disaster, but looking for comfort, or even perhaps meaning, in the gesture is impossible.

David Foster Wallace’s short story “The Suffering Channel,” (from his 2004 collection Oblivion) is in many ways a far more satisfying take on 9/11, although to be fair, the majority of the story’s events take place in July of 2001. The story (or novella, really; it’s 90 pages) centers around a magazine headquartered in the World Trade Center that plans to run an article—on September 10th, 2001—about a man who literally shits out pieces of art. Wallace’s critique of American culture (shit as art, commerce as style, advertising as language) is devastating against the context of the looming disaster to which his characters are so oblivious. As the novella reaches its close (culminating in the shit artist producing an original work for a live audience), we learn more about “The Suffering Channel,” a cable channel devoted to broadcasting only images of human beings suffering intense and horrible pain. Wallace seems to suggest that The Suffering Channel’s audience watches out of Schadenfreude or morbid fascination, that modern American culture so disconnects people that genuine suffering cannot be witnessed with empathy, but only as a form of spectacular, disengaged entertainment. And yet even as Wallace critiques American culture, the specter of the 9/11 attacks ironically inform his story. With our awful knowledge of what will happen the day after the shit artist article is published, we are able to see the ridiculous and ephemeral nature of the characters’ various concerns. At the same time, Wallace’s tale reveals that empathy for suffering is possible, but also that it comes at a tremendous price.

To contrast the journalistic immediacy of pieces like “In the Ruins of the Future” and “The View from Mrs. Thompson’s” with their respective writers attempts to measure 9/11 in literary fiction is perhaps a bit unfair. Still, Wallace’s and DeLillo’s essays transmit something of the ineffable, visceral quality of that terrible day, as well as the strange ways we sought comfort through human connection. In contrast, the distance and distortion of their literary efforts lose something. I apologize—I don’t have a word for this “something” that the essays have that the novel and novella lack (perhaps the absence is purposeful; perhaps not). It’s not clarity, but perhaps it’s a clarity of distortion that the essays convey, the duress, or to return to Wallace’s own notation, the pieces were “Written very fast and in what probably qualifies as shock.” It’s that shock, I suppose, that I’m trying to name, to say that it’s still there, accessible in those early responses (I realize now I’ve unfairly neglected Spiegelman’s book, which is a great example of immediacy). And to relive that shock is important, because, as Wallace reveals in both of his pieces, the cathartic power of shared tragedy makes us human, allows us to really live, and to be thankful that we do live.

Looking over this piece, I realize that it’s overly long and really says nothing, or at least nothing much about 9/11, or literature, or whatever. But I don’t want to be negative. I highly encourage you to read (or re-read) The View from Mrs. Thompson’s” and In the Ruins of the Future.” And I’ll leave it at that.

[Editorial note: We ran a (somewhat sloppier) version of this essay on 9.11.2009]

Book Acquired, 9.06.11

20110906-034002.jpg

The kind people at Picador sent me a copy of the trade paperback of this book called Freedom by some guy named Jonathan Franzen. The hardback came out last year, but it kinda went under the radar; one of those obscure underground reads. Maybe he’ll have more success in the paperback (it’s certainly lighter). The book has apparently been BeDazzled, too—a nice touch. The bird’s eye is this bumpy little bumpy bump—I tried to angle the cover so you might see it in the closeup below, but I’m not sure if it comes across.

20110906-034014.jpg

Sade Had a Phobia: The Sea

From Roland Barthes’ “Life of Sade,” a short biography of The Marquis de Sade. Translated from the French by Richard Miller.  Read the entire essay at Supervert (or here over the next few days, parceled out over 22 sections)—

13. Sade had a phobia: the sea. What will be given schoolchildren to read: Baudelaire’s poem (“Free man, you will always cherish the sea…”) or Sade’s avowal (“I’ve always feared and immensely disliked the sea…”)?

“Just Asking” — David Foster Wallace’s 9/11 Thought Experiment

Here’s David Foster Wallace’s “Just Asking,” from the November, 2007 issue of The Atlantic

Are some things still worth dying for? Is the American idea* one such thing? Are you up for a thought experiment? What if we chose to regard the 2,973 innocents killed in the atrocities of 9/11 not as victims but as democratic martyrs, “sacrifices on the altar of freedom”?* In other words, what if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to terrorism is part of the price of the American idea? And, thus, that ours is a generation of Americans called to make great sacrifices in order to preserve our democratic way of life—sacrifices not just of our soldiers and money but of our personal safety and comfort?

In still other words, what if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?

Is this thought experiment monstrous? Would it be monstrous to refer to the 40,000-plus domestic highway deaths we accept each year because the mobility and autonomy of the car are evidently worth that high price? Is monstrousness why no serious public figure now will speak of the delusory trade-off of liberty for safety that Ben Franklin warned about more than 200 years ago? What exactly has changed between Franklin’s time and ours? Why now can we not have a serious national conversation about sacrifice, the inevitability of sacrifice—either of (a) some portion of safety or (b) some portion of the rights and protections that make the American idea so incalculably precious?

In the absence of such a conversation, can we trust our elected leaders to value and protect the American idea as they act to secure the homeland? What are the effects on the American idea of Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, Patriot Acts I and II, warrantless surveillance, Executive Order 13233, corporate contractors performing military functions, the Military Commissions Act, NSPD 51, etc., etc.? Assume for a moment that some of these measures really have helped make our persons and property safer—are they worth it? Where and when was the public debate on whether they’re worth it? Was there no such debate because we’re not capable of having or demanding one? Why not? Have we actually become so selfish and scared that we don’t even want to consider whether some things trump safety? What kind of future does that augur?

FOOTNOTES:
1. Given the strict Gramm-Rudmanewque space limit here, let’s just please all agree that we generally know what this term connotes—an open society, consent of the governed, enumerated powers, Federalist 10, pluralism, due process, transparency … the whole democratic roil.

2. (This phrase is Lincoln’s, more or less)

Fantastic Vision — Goya

Biblioklept’s Favorite Books of the Summer

With Memorial Day ’11 just a memory and Labor Day warning off the wearing of white, I revisit some of the best books I read this summer:

Although I posted a review of Roberto Bolaño’s collection Between Parentheses two weeks before Memorial Day, I continued to read and reread the book over the entire summer. It was the gift that kept giving, a kind of blurry filter for the summer heat, a rambling literary dictionary for book thieves. For example, when I started Witold Gombrowicz’s Trans-Atlantyk a week or two ago, I spent a beer-soaked midnight tracing through Bolaño’s many notations on the Polish self-exile.

Trans-Atlantyk also goes on this list, or a sub-list of this list: great books that I’ve read, been reading (or in some cases, listened to/am listening to) but have not yet reviewed. I finished Trans-Atlantyk at two AM Sunday morning (surely the intellectual antidote to having watched twelve hours of college football that day) and it’s one of the strangest, most perplexing books I’ve ever read—and that’s saying something. Full review when I can process the book (or at least process the idea of processing the book).

I also read and absolutely loved Russell Hoban’s Kleinzeit, which is almost as bizarre as Trans-Atlantyk; like that novel (and Hoban’s cult classic Riddley Walker), Kleinzeit  is written in its own idiom, an animist world where concepts like Death and Action and Hospital and even God become concrete characters. It’s funny and sad. Also funny and sad: Christopher Boucher’s How to Keep Your Volkswagen Alive (new from Melville House). Like Trans-Atlantyk and Kleinzheit, Volkswagen is composed in its own language, a concrete surrealism full of mismatched metaphorical displacements. It’s a rare bird, an experimental novel with a great big heart. Full reviews forthcoming.

I’ll be running a review of Evelio Rosero’s new novel Good Offices this week, but I read it two sittings at the beginning of August and it certainly belongs on this list. It’s a compact and spirited satire of corruption in a Catholic church in Bogotá, unwinding almost like a stage play over the course of a few hours in one life-changing evening for a hunchback and his friends. Good stuff.

On the audiobook front, I’ve been working my way through George R. R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire series; I finished the first audiobook, A Game of Thrones, after enjoying the HBO series, and then moved into the second book, A Clash of Kings, which I’m only a few hours from completing. I think that the HBO series, which follows the first book fairly faithfully, is much closer to The Wire or Deadwood than it is to Peter Jackson’s Tolkien films—the story is less about fantasy and magic than it is about political intrigue during an ongoing civil war. This is a world where honor and chivalry, not to mention magic and dragons, have disappeared, replaced by Machiavellian cunning and schemers of every stripe. Martin slowly releases fantastic elements into this largely desacralized world, contesting his characters’ notions of order and meaning. There are also beheadings. Lots and lots of beheadings. The books are a contemporary English department’s wet dream, by the by. Martin’s epic concerns decentered authority; it critiques power as a constantly shifting set of differential relations lacking a magical centering force. He also tells his story through multiple viewpoints, eschewing the glowing third person omniscient lens that usually focuses on grand heroes in fantasy, and concentrates instead, via a sharp free indirect style, on protagonists who have been relegated to the margins of heroism: a dwarf, a cripple, a bastard, a mother trying to hold her family together, a teenage exile . . . good stuff.

Leo Tolstoy’s final work Hadji Murad also depicts a world of shifting power, civil war, unstable alliances, and beheadings (although not as many as in Martin’s books). Hadji Murad tells the story of the real-life Caucasian Avar general Hadji Murad who fought under Imam Shamil, the leader of the Muslim tribes of the Northern Caucuses; Shamil was Russia’s greatest foe. This novel concerns Murad’s attempt to defect to the Russians and save his family, which Shamil has captured. The book is a richly detailed and surprisingly funny critique of power and violence.

William Faulkner’s Light in August might be the best book I read this summer; it’s certainly the sweatiest, headiest, and grossest, filled with all sorts of vile abjection and hatred. Faulkner’s writing is thick, archaeological even, plowing through layers of Southern sediment to dig up and reanimate old corpses. The book is somehow both nauseating and vital. Not a pleasant read, to be honest, but one that sticks with you—sticks in you even—long after the last page.

Although David Foster Wallace’s posthumous novel The Pale King was released in the spring, I didn’t start reading it until June; too much buzz in my ears. If you’ve avoided reading it so far because of the hype, fair enough—but don’t neglect it completely. It’s a beautiful, frustrating, and extremely rewarding read.

Speaking of fragments from dead writers: part two of Roberto Bolaño’s The Third Reich, published in the summer issue of The Paris Review, was a perfect treat over the July 4th weekend. I’m enjoying the suspense of a serialized novel far more than I would have imagined.

Wayne Koestenbaum’s Humiliation is probably the funniest, wisest, and most moving work of cultural studies I’ve ever read.  Unlike many of the tomes that clutter academia, Humiliation is accessible, humorous, and loving, a work of philosophical inquiry that also functions as cultural memoir. Despite its subject of pain and abjection, it repeatedly offers solutions when it can, and consolation and sympathy when it cannot.

So the second posthumously published, unfinished novel from a suicide I read this summer was Ernest Hemingway’s The Garden of Eden, the sultry strange tale of a doomed ménage à trois. (I’m as humiliated by that last phrase as you might be, dear reader. Sorry). Hemingway’s story of young beautiful newlyweds drinking and screwing and eating their way across the French Riviera is probably the weirdest thing he ever wrote. It’s a story of gender reversals, the problems of a three-way marriage, elephant hunting, bizarre haircuts, and heavy, heavy drinking. The Garden of Eden is perhaps Hemingway at his most self-critical; it’s a study in how Hemingway writes (his protagonist and stand-in is a rising author) that also actively critiques his shortcomings (as both author and human). The Garden of Eden should not be overlooked when working through Hemingway’s oeuvre. I’d love to see a critical edition with the full text someday (the novel that Scribner published pared down Hemingway’s unfinished manuscript to about a third of its size).

Also fragmentary fun: F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Notebooks. Like Twitter before Twitter, sort of.

These weren’t the only books I read this summer but they were the best.

Binocular Aesthetic

Sade Is Constantly Bookkeeping: Classes of Subjects, Orgasms, Victims

From Roland Barthes’ “Life of Sade,” a short biography of The Marquis de Sade. Translated from the French by Richard Miller.  Read the entire essay at Supervert (or here over the next few days, parceled out over 22 sections)—

12. In certain of the letters he received or wrote at Vincennes or in the Bastille, Sade discerned or inserted number utterances which he called signals. These signals helped him to imagine or even to read (supposing they were put there intentionally by his correspondent and had escaped the censor) the number of days between receipt and a visit from his wife, an authorization for outdoor recreation, or his freedom; these signals are for the most part malevolent (“The number system is working against me…”). The mania for numbers can be read at various levels; first, neurotic defense: in his fiction, Sade is constantly bookkeeping: classes of subjects, orgasms, victims, and, above all, like Ignatius Loyola, in a purely obsessive twist, he accounts for his own oversights, his errors in numbering; further, number, when it deranges a rational system (we may rather say made purposely to derange it), has the power to produce a surrealistic shock: “On the 18th at 9, the clock chimed 26 times,” Sade notes in his Journal; finally, number is the triumphant path of access to the signifier (here as a pun involving the similarity of pronunciation, in French, of the past tense of “to come,” vint, and the number “twenty,” vingt): (“The other day, because we needed a 24, a flunkey pretending to be M. le Noir [a police officer], and so that I might write to Monsieur Le Noir, came at 4 (vint le 4), thus 24 (vingtquatre).” Numeration is the beginning of writing, its liberating positioning: a connection apparently censured in the history of ideography, if we are to believe J.-L. Schefer’s current work on hieroglyphics and cuneiform: the phonological theory of language (Jakobson) unduly separates the linguist from writing; calculation will bring him closer.

The List of Sade’s Detentions

From Roland Barthes’ “Life of Sade,” a short biography of The Marquis de Sade. Translated from the French by Richard Miller.  Read the entire essay at Supervert (or here over the next few days, parceled out over 22 sections)—

11. The list of Sade’s detentions began in 1763 (he was twenty-three) and ended with his death in 1814. This almost uninterrupted imprisonment covers all the later years of the Ancien Régime, the revolutionary crisis and the Empire, in short, it straddles the vast change accomplished by modern France. Whence it is easy to accuse, behind the various regimes that detained the Marquis, a higher entity, an unalterable source of repression (government or state) which encountered in Sade a symmetrical essence of Immorality and subversion: Sade is like the exemplary hero of an eternal conflict: had they been less blind (but then, they were bourgeois, were they not?), Michelet and Hugo could have celebrated in him the fate of a martyr for liberty. Counter to this facile image, we must remember that Sade’s detentions were historical, they derived their meaning from contemporary History, and since this History was precisely that of social change, there were in Sade’s imprisonment at least two successive and different determinations and, to speak generically, two prisons. The first (Vincennes, the Bastille, until Sade’s liberation by the dawning Revolution) was not a fact of Law. Although Sade had been judged and condemned to death by the Aix Parlement for sodomy (the Marseilles affair), although he was arrested in 1777 in the Rue Jacob after years of flight and more or less clandestine returns to La Coste, it was under the action of a lettre de cachet (issued by the king at the instigation of the Lady President of Montreuil); the accusation of sodomy lifted and the judgment overturned, he nonetheless went back to prison, since the lettre de cachet, independent of the court decree, continued in effect; and if he was liberated, it was because the Constituent Assembly abolished the lettre de cachet in 1790; thus it is easy to understand that Sade’s first imprisonment had no penal or moral significance whatsoever; it was aimed essentially at preserving the honor of the Sade-Montreuil family from the Marquis’s escapades; Sade was regarded as a libertine who was being “contained,” and as a familial essence that was being saved; the context of this first imprisonment is a feudal one: the race commands, not morality; the king, dispenser of the lettre de cachet, is here merely the agent of the people. Sade’s second imprisonment (from 1801 to his death: at Sainte-Pélagie, Bicêtre, and Charenton) is another matter; the Family has disappeared, the bourgeois State rules, it is this (and not a prudent mother-in-law) which has imprisoned Sade (although with no more of a trial than in the first instance) for having written his infamous books. There is a confusion (under which we are still laboring) established between morality and politics. This began with the Revolutionary Tribunal (whose always fatal sanction is familiar), which included as enemies of the people “individuals fostering moral depravity”; it continued in Jacobin discourse (“He brags,” Sade’s comrades in Piques said, “of having been shut up in the Bastille during the Ancien Régime so as to appear patriotic, whereas had he not been from the ‘noble’ caste, he would have been meted another kind of exemplary punishment”; in other words, bourgeois equality had already, retroactively, made him an immoral criminal); then in Republican discourse (“Justine,” a journalist said in 1799, “is a work as dangerous as the royalist newspaper Le Nécessaire, because if republics are founded on courage, they are upheld by morality; destruction of the latter always leads to the destruction of empires”); and finally, after Sade’s death, in bourgeois discourse (Royer-Collard, Jules Janin, etc.). Sade’s second prison (where he remains today, since his books are not freely sold in France) is no longer due to a family protecting itself, but to the apparatus of an entire State (justice, teaching, the press, criticism), which — in the Church’s default — censors morality and controls literary production. Sade’s first detention was segregative (cynical); the second was (is still) penal, moral; the first arose out of a practice, the second out of an ideology; this is proved by the fact that in imprisoning Sade the second time, it was necessary to mobilize a subject philosophy based totally on norm and deviation: for having written his books, Sade was shut up as a madman.

Henry Clay’s Death Mask

Sadean Secretaries, For Writing and For Debauchery

From Roland Barthes’ “Life of Sade,” a short biography of The Marquis de Sade. Translated from the French by Richard Miller.  Read the entire essay at Supervert (or here over the next few days, parceled out over 22 sections)—

10. Sade had several young secretaries (Reillanne, young Malatié or Lamalatié, Rolland, Lefèvre, of whom he was jealous and whose portrait he pierced with a penknife), they are part of the Sadian game insofar as they are simultaneously servants for writing and for debauchery.

In One Breath — The Making of Russian Ark

In One Breath is a documentary about the making of Aleksandr Sokurov’s 2002 film Russian Ark, one of the dreamiest, most sublime movies I’ve ever experienced. The entirety of  Russian Ark unfolds in one continuous take, with not a single cut in its 99 minutes (even though there are ballroom dance scenes and orchestras and other massive set pieces). Stunning stuff.

Continue reading “In One Breath — The Making of Russian Ark”