Category: The Purge

I read The Sheltering Sky just a few years after I read Surfacing and it is another book that I strongly associate with a particular time and place. I was living in Tokyo and when I think back on my thoughts and emotions of that time, I understand them to be very much bound up with the people I knew there and with the intensities of the expatriate experience. Of all the books that remain on my shelf, The Sheltering Sky is the one that dives deepest into the matter of moving across the world and into an alien culture, something I have done several times across the years. In that way, it hits awfully close to home. My attachment to it has always been primarily emotional, and hence mostly wordless. Now that it’s time for me to try and write about it, it’s hard to begin.

Paul Bowles was born in New York in 1910. He was musically gifted and in his early life he composed music for a number of theatre and film productions in the United States, collaborating with well-known authors and artists of his time, including Tennessee Williams, Orson Welles, Lilian Hellman, William Saroyan, Merce Cunningham, Leonard Bernstein, and even Salvador Dali. In 1938 he married Jane Auer, who is better known now as Jane Bowles, the author of two eccentric novels, a number of short stories, and a play called In The Summerhouse. Both Paul and Jane developed intimate same sex relationships outside their marriage, but they remained very close up until Jane’s death in 1973.

Throughout his life Paul Bowles was a traveller. When he lived in the U.S. he travelled to Europe, Latin America and North Africa. In 1947 he moved to Tangier and made further explorations of North Africa, while at the same time working on The Sheltering Sky. In 1948 Jane joined him in Tangier and they remained mostly there for the rest of their lives. In the early 1950’s Paul spent some of his time on a tiny island just off the coast of what is now Sri Lanka, but Tangier remained his base. Here’s a Cecil Beaton photograph of Paul and Jane in Tangier in 1949, the year that The Sheltering Sky was published. She was 32; he was 39.

I’m not sure why I am going on in such detail about the lives of these two. It has something to do with how The Sheltering Sky works. I can’t help feeling that the experience of being with Jane contributed something very important to Paul’s writing of this particular novel, which most people think is his best. Also, there is the matter of authenticity. The locales are exotic, but Bowles has clearly been in them and the novel is very much grounded in the real world that he experienced, not in the kind of deliberately artificial worlds created by Nabokov or Hawkes. For Bowles the world that is here before us is something we can’t turn away from. We need to deal with it and we need clear awareness of it. Self-absorption and inattention are punished.

But I need to get more specific. Here’s a passage that I didn’t pay much attention to on the first reading, but that I now find quite wonderful.  It comes fairly early just as we’re getting to know the characters of Port and Kit. Port speaks:

“I know, you never like to talk seriously,” he said, ‘but it won’t hurt you to try for once.” She smiled scornfully, since she considered his vague generalities the most frivolous kind of chatter–a mere vehicle for his emotions. According to her, at such times there was no question of his meaning or not meaning what he said, because he did not really know what he was saying.

Later on, as Kit and Port are moving deeper into desert, they are also becoming more estranged. Kit worries about this:

After Tunner’s departure, she had vaguely expected a change in their relationship. The only difference his absence made was that now she could express herself clearly, without fear of seeming to be choosing sides. But rather than make any effort to ease whatever small tension might arise between them, she determined on the contrary to be intransigent about everything. It could come about now or later, that much-awaited reunion, but it must be all his doing. Because neither she nor Port had ever lived a life of any kind of regularity, they both had made the fatal error of coming hazily to regard time as non-existent. One year was like another year. Eventually everything would happen.

Kit and Port assume that physical safety and emotional security are always going to be there, requiring little effort to achieve or maintain. By ignoring such mundane responsibilities, Port can give all of his attention to his quest to experience an alien world, a quest which he only half understands and which Kit does not fully share. Kit, in fact, occasionally speaks of reversing course and making a move back toward civilization. But she takes no action in that direction. As we journey along with them, throughout the middle section of novel, we find ourselves watching them make several seemingly dubious decisions. “Hey kids,” we want to say to them, “Are you sure you really want to do that?”

Port clearly does want to do what he does. But why? What is he looking for? The question of what a traveller is looking for might seem to draw us forward toward the destination country. What is it about North Africa that Port longs for? But there’s another side to the question. We also need to look back. What was it that caused him to leave the place where he was? Port at one point calls the U.S. an impossible place to live and later says that Europe, since the war, is horrible. (Kit does not object to these judgements, but nor does she show great enthusiasm. We suspect that in her world she has learned not expect too much from a mere change of location.) We are not told what it is specifically that Port finds so horrible, only that he is looking for a way out by going farther away from the familiar and deeper into the alien. There is a paradox here. Port feels he is an alien in his own country and its culture. He addresses this lack of belonging by plunging into another part of the world, even more alien. Sometimes there is only a fine line separating “I really don’t want to be here” from “I really don’t want to be.” Here are a few words from relatively late in Port’s journey:

As he walked along the hot road toward the walls of Bou Noura he kept his head down, seeing nothing but the dust and thousands of small sharp stones. He did not look up because he knew how senseless the landscape would appear. It takes energy to invest life with meaning, and at present his energy was lacking.

Throughout the first three fourths of novel, Port dominates. We hear mostly his voice and he is the one who makes most of the decisions that carry the story forward. What makes this novel really memorable, however, is what happens when Port leaves the story. At that point Kit becomes the center around which everything revolves. She acts with a decisiveness she has never shown before, but she does not explain or justify her actions. To do so would be to become like Port, to engage in “the most frivolous kind of chatter.”

Our understanding of the story progresses partly by symbols, things like the steep iron stairway that descends the fortress wall and leads Port to the tents below, or like the time much later when Kit finds that her watch wasn’t where she left it. This last bit of business screams out danger, but there is no need to pay much attention; the danger was there from the start. The roads to safety were all considered and rejected for reasons of pride, confusion and a critical but obscure necessity. The question that remains is this: to what degree did these two travelers find exactly what they were looking for? Is it tragedy or triumph? They have both passed out of the place in which we can understand their experience, but what does that matter to either of them? The Sheltering Sky can be seen as a tragic story of bad decisions by unprepared travelers, but is it really that? Were the two of them–and especially Kit–truly unprepared? I do not think so.

I’ve been thinking that Blue Movie and Surfacing are about as different from one another as two novels can be, given that they were published at around the same time and in the same linguistic and cultural milieu. Blue Movie is straight ahead action with all the subtlety of a wrecking ball. The action is described in detail, the dialog is hilarious and direct, the meaning of it all is never in doubt, and the only time that really matters is the time right now. In the world of Surfacing, the action of the present is always being disrupted by the intrusion of memories and analysis of the past; the words of dialog are ambiguous and rarely sufficient; the meaning of it all is always in doubt. Southern gives us characters who are grossly insensitive; Atwood gives us a character who is sensitive to an awful lot, who perhaps sees too much of the meaning of the world. As Atwood’s narrator says early on in the novel: “here everything echoes.”

Those three words come on page 47 of my copy, a four by seven inch Popular Library paperback from 1972, an interesting artifact. Across the top of the front cover the publisher’s blurb reads: “The most shattering novel a woman ever wrote–” The author’s name is in purple and the title is bright orangey red. A small, dark photo shows a man and woman stroking each other’s necks and about to touch lips. The man is slightly lower than the woman; he also fades more into the dark background.  Both appear to have their eyes closed. At the bottom of the cover is a quote from the New York Times: “Even better than The Bell Jar…Vivid and gripping!”

If you open the book, the first thing you see is a page whereon the publishers have excerpted two short paragraphs from the book, one of them the only overtly sexual passage in the novel and the other relating to childbirth. Next come two pages of critical praise. Only after these does the title page appear. On the back cover are more quotes from contemporary reviewers. Here’s a sampling of the review excerpts. From the Cleveland Plain Dealer: “Shatteringly effective…deeply moving and original.”  From the Denver Post: “A woman’s novel equal to James Dickey’s Deliverance.” From the Boston Globe: “The author has created in her heroine a person for survival; a new breed of woman, ‘a new kind of centerfold’.”

Clearly a number of critics really liked Surfacing. Just as clearly, the contemporary cultural current really wanted to foreground the fact that the author was a woman. The publisher is the least subtle: “The most shattering novel a woman ever wrote.” (Nowhere in my research have I come across anyone describing Blue Movie as “The dirtiest novel a man ever wrote.”) The NYT is a little more subtle. The phrase “Even better than The Bell Jar” is just about perfect, praise that seems sincere but also educated, praise that places Atwood’s novel firmly in its niche. Some of the other reviewers seem to have been struggling a bit. In regard to the Denver Post, what does the phrase “a woman’s novel” actually mean? And why compare Surfacing to Deliverance? Because they both have canoes? And that Boston Globe reviewer! The tagline I quoted above is very close to gibberish. But it gets its message across anyway, doesn’t it? It manages to suggest that what is important here the revelatory quality, a woman character who tells us what she really thinks about men and possibly even about having sex with them. The reference to “a new kind of centerfold” is flat out bizarre, but it hints at a chance to look at the forbidden, the monster we don’t talk about, a being who would rather survive as herself than sacrifice herself to please others. Wild times, those 70’s.

Anyway, as far as those critics’ blurbs go, I’m happiest with Cleveland. Surfacing is “effective” and “deeply moving” for sure. When Atwood shows us how the narrator’s deepest structural foundations begin to fall away, I could feel mine slipping too. It’s scary. We’re running parallel to part of Pynchon’s universe here; and we’re falling through the membrane. And when it comes to watching the membrane tear, Atwood is more convincing.

Her later novels are better known than Surfacing and they are wonderful stories; but for me Surfacing is special. I was young when I first read it, twenty-six or twenty-seven. I will always associate it with my life at that time and with the woman who first told me about it. I might even say that this novel changed my life, that I learned something from it–not very much, I’m afraid, not as much as I should have learned, but a little. And for that little I must be grateful.

Much as I admire Pynchon, I have to say that I am really enjoying the sensation of leaving him behind and drifting into the world of Terry Southern. Not that Southern’s world is completely different from Pynchon’s, but it is a lot simpler and easier to deal with. On the first page of Blue Movie we are at a Hollywood party where a producer named Sid Krassman is telling a joke about a frustrated starlet. The punchline has the starlet asking desperately “Who do I have to fuck to get off this picture?” Pynchon could almost have created this scene. But Pynchon would have sandwiched it between a couple of far more abstruse passages and somehow given the whole package a mysterious depth as if the joke were being told atop a thin and fragile membrane above a bottomless cauldron of darkness and mystery. If you’d rather skip that part, you need Terry Southern.

Southern was a novelist, screenwriter, occasional teacher, and habitual methamphetamine user whose work wove in and out of a long list of 60’s and 70’s cultural phenomena. He worked on Easy Rider, Dr. Strangelove, Barbarella, Casino Royale, The Cincinnati Kid, and other films. He was a long-time friend of Peter Sellars and is said to have collaborated with Sellers on much of the dialog that Sellers added to the Pink Panther films. He wrote novels, short fiction and magazine articles and Tom Wolfe credits him for having invented new journalism with his 1962 Esquire article “Twirling at Ole Miss.” He even worked for a while for Saturday Night Live–though not during its best years or his.

Terry Southern may be remembered more for his screenwriting than for his fiction, but Blue Movie has always been a sentimental favorite of mine. The story begins when a very successful and jaded Hollywood director gets the idea of making the ultimate high-class porn movie–with well-known actors, highest quality production values, and no limits on what could be shown. Somewhat to his surprise, a producer–the aforementioned Sid Krassman–finds a way to arrange some major financing for the project. What follows is often funny but seldom very subtle. The characters are depthless caricatures bordering on stereotypes. Some of the explicit sex scenes are charming in their way but some others just go on and on in obsessive detail. (I can’t help speculating that meth use might account for some of that.) The result is a book that is embarrassing even to own. I probably got rid of my first copy partly for that reason.

Why then, when I saw it in Powell’s in the late 90’s, did I buy another one? And why is it still with me, having survived the great purge? I don’t know. Possibly because Southern is brilliantly hilarious in short bursts and, overall, the satire is so unflinching and so accurate. And in fact, Blue Movie only seems to be about sex. It’s more about depicting Hollywood culture, which Southern sees as an amalgam of sexism, racism, vulgarity, venality, and monstrous ego. When it was published in 1970, it seems that few of us were really listening. As a broader culture, did we think Southern was just kidding? Did we not want to know or did we not really care? Probably all three played a part. When I bought a new edition of Blue Movie at Powell’s in the 90’s, it was as if its message had been completely forgotten. Beginning with a dedication to “the great Stanley K.” and featuring an opening quote from T. S. Eliot, it was a 70’s curiosity that came with a garish new 90’s cover, and it was published by Grove Press, which was itself a famous name long past its glory days. A sentimental choice indeed.

So what about these days? Well, Southern’s novels are hardly well known, but in the last few years, the racist and sexist aspects of Hollywood have certainly got some widespread attention. So that’s a kind of vindication for him. As for venality, vulgarity and ego, those may hang on a little longer; they’re generally doing well in many parts of the country. Which reminds me that whatever you think of Donald Trump, one thing is certain. If he were a character in a Terry Southern novel, he’d fit right in.

The first Pynchon book that I read was V.  I still remember how enthralled I was with its exotic locations and explosion of ideas. What a wonderful book it was for a young man who was just starting to explore the world! I quickly sought out The Crying of Lot 49 and then Gravity’s Rainbow. A few years later I read all three of those again. Then Vineland. Then Mason & Dixon. Then Inherent Vice. Then Mason & Dixon again.

That’s a lot of Pynchon work, and as you may know, Pynchon work is hard. The novels are usually long and there are dozens of characters. The language is densely imagistic. The characters and their experiences are exotic; the stories are intense, filled with foreboding, danger and suspense. And though each story has conflict and narrative drive, the novel jumps from one semi self-contained episode to the next. Once one scene ends, the novel shifts to another, one with a different focus, set in a different time and place, possibly with a wildly different tone. They all seem to be related–very much so–but the relations are unclear and shifting. It’s hard to keep track.

But that’s because there is no track, or rather, there is and there isn’t. When a new episode begins, introducing an almost entirely new character with a new set of problems beginning in a time six years before the episode you just finished, it can be frustrating. You might ask “Why do I have to wade though this? What about my favorite character? What about the main story?” For example, at around page 400 of Gravity’s Rainbow Pynchon begins a 40-page section about a character named Franz Pokler, someone the reader hasn’t really met before and perhaps won’t ever see much of again. So, I’m thinking, “Oh god, here’s yet another digression. It’s like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown. I can’t stand it.” But the thing is, if you push ahead, you find out that Franz Pokler’s story is fascinating. Is it connected to other parts of the novel? Yes, but does that connection constitute it’s real importance? Not for Franz. For Franz, his story matters most. At this point in the novel, at this moment of reading, it becomes that way for the reader as well.

And as if the density and the discontinuity weren‘t enough, Pynchon occasionally interjects passages of closely described natural scenes that evoke strong emotional states but which make little reference to any characters at all. Are these hard to plow through? Oh yeah. On the other hand, Pynchon also throws some wild parties, filled with slap-stick drama, hair’s breadth escapes and trenchant dialog. Gravity’s Rainbow, especially, just explodes with voices.

In some novels it makes sense to speak of character development, to think about how a character’s complexity is revealed as the story progresses. The main protagonist in Gravity’s Rainbow, the person we are most likely to identify with, is Tyrone Slothrop. We hear a lot about him and we spend a lot of time seeing things from his point of view. We can’t help hoping that somehow things will come out well for him. But alas! Gravity’s Rainbow is actually a 760-page exegesis of how it is that Tyrone comes to be less and less present, less and less real. Tyrone gradually becomes a nebulous mist and fades away. Some readers might find that frustrating at first. I know I did. But then I came to understand it. Becoming less and less real is all any of us do, really. It’s kind of tragic, but also it’s hilarious.

I don’t often remember particular lines or passages from the books I read. But from Gravity’s Rainbow there are two things that have stayed with me from the very first reading. The first one is this:

Personal density is directly proportional to temporal bandwidth.

I take this to mean that the more you remember your past and the more you foresee of your future, the more substantial you are. We hear a lot about learning to live in the now, that all the rest is illusion and distraction. The suggestion is that living in the now is the pure essence of being. Pynchon reminds us, though, that purity is transparent. If you achieve it, there’s really no you there anymore. (Nothing to see here, folks, just move along.)

And then there’s this, which has been one of my prime operating principles ever since I first read it all those years ago:

Q: Then what about all the others? Boston? London? The ones who live in cities. Are those people real, or what?

A: Some are real, and some aren’t.

Q: Well are the real ones necessary? or unnecessary?

A: It depends on what you have in mind.

Q: Shit, I don’t have anything in mind.

A: We do.

One reason I like this is that I’m pretty sure I don’t ultimately have anything in mind. In one sense, that’s my trouble.

The Blood Oranges is my favorite of these three. I kept the other two partly because I love their appearance. Their wonderful New Directions covers have a nice patina–worn but not quite shabby. Also, DST and Travesty are skinny and don’t take up much shelf space. The Blood Oranges is thicker and for me  also more interesting. The story is said to take place in Illyria, which is the name that the classical Greeks used to refer to the relatively remote and uncivilized lands on the east coast of the Adriatic, which today would include parts of Albania, Montenegro, and Croatia. Hawkes once said that he “wanted to try to create a world, not represent it.” Like Nabokov, Hawkes is not writing directly about this world; the worlds of his novels are artistic creations. Hawkes calls his setting Illyria not because he wants to describe the east coast of the Adriatic for the benefit of potential tourists in the late twentieth century, but rather because he wants to evoke a classical Greek vision of a wild place, a strange place where strange things might happen. Shakespeare was doing the same thing when he used Illyria as the setting for Twelfth Night.

John Hawkes was born in Connecticut, graduated from Harvard, and spent most of his working life as an English professor at Brown. The three of his novels that I own were all published when he was in his late forties and early fifties and all of them feature sexual love triangles and quadrangles. The characters are mostly what we might call leisure class; their backgrounds and last names are usually unspecified. The stories feature twentieth century technologies–cars, cameras, and ocean liners–but there is no trace of contemporary history, politics, or popular culture.

The storyline of The Blood Oranges begins like this. A childless couple, Cyril and Fiona, are spending time in a rented a villa on a hill above the sea somewhere on the Illyrian coast. The weather is mostly kind and the existence idyllic. One day five more travelers arrive in the town: Hugh, Catherine and their three daughters. They rent a nearby villa and the two couples become friends. As they spend time together, a certain amount of sexual attraction begins to arise. One of the strengths of the novel is that the place from which the critical events begin–the jumping off point–is not all that strange; it’s not even unfamiliar. Hawkes knows this, of course. But he is creating, not representing, and this is Illyria, not Montenegro. So even at the beginning of their story, the atmosphere is not quite as simple as it sounds. What would happen, Hawkes is asking, if the four people involved were maybe a little different from you and most of the people you know? What if they were like Fiona and Hugh and Catherine and Cyril, all them interesting characters who have their own peculiarities?

It took me a long time to realize something that should be obvious, which is that Cyril, who is the first-person narrator of the story, has a sly but surely deliberate resemblance to the Greek god Pan.

Pan was the libidinous god of rustic music, of shepherds and flocks, and of wild mountain places. His instrument is a pipe made of reeds, called today a pan flute. Although Cyril doesn’t play an instrument, he often talks about how his way of life and the way he interacts with others is itself a kind of music. He says that it is a song that he sings. And then there are those odd references to his “thick” thighs, as well as the fact that he is certainly libidinous. And what better place to find Pan than in Illyria? And if Cyril evokes Pan, might Hugh evoke Hephaestus, the lame god who is the blacksmith and forger of weapons in the Greek pantheon? Maybe. In any case, this is the kind of story Hawkes wants to tell.

The language of the book is dense and poetic, languid and beautiful. There are no chapter or section headings. The book consists of dozens of self-contained passages of first-person reporting. Some are quite long; some are just a page or two. Taken all together they tell a story, but they are not presented in chronological order and the reader is left to figure out exactly where in the overall narrative the current passage fits. That’s a little difficult in the beginning, and two readings of The Blood Oranges are better than one. But the novel is in fact carefully structured and eventually all is revealed–all, that is, that can be revealed or known in the kind of world that the author creates.

The novel is infused with sex, but there are no depictions of it, no ‘sex scenes’ as we call them now. It is also deeply intellectual, but there is nothing muddy or difficult about it. There is a clarity of emotion, a generosity of viewpoint, an acceptance of both joy and pain. Hawkes presents us with a vision of the power and the beauty of sexual love and of the ugly and destructive forces that are sometimes inseparable from it. There is no simple moral to the story; we have to make of it what we will.

I admire people who can recite poetry from memory. The only lines of poetry that have ever stuck in my mind are a few fragments of wildly diverse origin. One such fragment is this couplet:

I was the shadow of the waxwing slain                                                                    By the false azure of the windowpane

These are the first two lines of a long poem called Pale Fire, which occupies 26 pages of Nabokov’s eponymous novel. That novel has four parts: a forward, the poem itself in four cantos, a 160-page section that purports to be commentary on the text of the poem, and a final index section. The author of the poem is named as John Shade; the writer of the forward, the commentary and the index is said to be one Charles Kinbote. The primary conceit of the novel is that Kinbote, while claiming to be a devoted friend of John Shade and promising to produce a definitive edition of the poem following Shade’s untimely death, is in fact a highly unreliable narrator who attempts to hijack Shade’s poem and Shade himself for his own purposes. Kinbote is a wonderful character–preposterously self-involved, laughably obtuse, and thoroughly unprincipled. He is also bright, fluent, and entertaining.

One of the charms of the novel is how well Nabokov reveals Kinbote’s unreliability, given that the only voice in the book is Kinbote’s own. Sometimes Kinbote’s convoluted attempts to convince us that he is telling the truth have the opposite effect. At other times he gives himself away by obliviously providing us with telling details whose significance he seems to miss. And sometimes, we just don’t know whether he is telling the truth or not. We know, for instance, that he is obsessed by a certain version of how he came to be a college instructor at Wordsmith College in New Wye, Appalachia, but we are free to decide how much we believe of what he says. Nabokov is a genius in making nested and interlocking puzzles, filled to overflowing with fascinating and stylish detail. Readers are challenged to to tease out what “really” happened; once we feel that we have done so, we also feel entitled to be proud of ourselves.

Pale Fire is a pyrotechnical entertainment, with bright bursts of ideas shooting off in all directions, disappearing into darkness, and then suddenly reappearing in varying patterns and hues. And the book is hilarious. Compared to this, the Nathanael West stories are shapeless, colorless, and slow. Dorothy Parker called The Day of the Locust “a truly good novel.” That sounds like she thinks it’s a good story, an illuminating sequence of events brilliantly described and narrated. Compare this to what Mary McCarthy said about Pale Fire, calling that book “one of the great works of art of this century.” A great work of art is not the same thing as a really good story. A “great work of art” seems stronger in a way, suggesting that Pale Fire is worthy of comparison to Picasso as well as to Virginia Woolf. But another effect of this characterization is to de-emphasize the novel as a story of what happened and inch it toward the category of beautiful creations, a category that might also include Faberge Eggs and Tiffany lamps. According to Kinbote, the truth of creative art is that “…‘reality’ is neither the subject nor the object of true art, which creates its own special reality having nothing to do with the average ‘reality’ perceived by the communal eye.” This is almost certainly a restatement of Nabokov’s own view. It is almost certainly not West’s view. I think West wants to describe what’s really there, what the communal eye either does see or damn well ought to be seeing.

Pale Fire, taken as a whole, is an assembled thing. The forward is short and serves to set up the main conceit, that Kinbote is committed to presenting a definitive edition of his friend’s last poem. The poem itself is competent but hardly inspired. I’ve read it three times and other than the first two lines, I remember none of it. But the poem serves excellently its real purpose, which is to act as a supporting framework for a variety of entertainments that are contained in Kinbote’s very extensive notes. It forms the stage upon which Kinbote/Nabokov can dance his dance. That’s the sense in which it is a great work of art rather than a great story. It is, of course, full of great little stories and does have one overarching narrative relating to “real” life and “real” death. Put all that together, and it will keep your attention.

The problem with the meta novel, though, is the same problem as with metaphysics. Once you stray very far beyond observable physics or beyond the presumed reality of the events described in a story, there’s no particular place to go, or more accurately, no particular place to stop. Once we realize Kinbote’s unreliability, we can ask all sorts of intriguing questions. The wonderful thing about Pale Fire is how we readers can’t help asking those questions and then making our judgments about the things Kinbote says. Is it the truth? Is it a deliberate lie? Or is it a delusion? But since this is all just a fiction, what does it matter? The answer can only be that Nabokov has sucked us into his game and we’re all having a grand old time playing it.

So Nabokov is a master, but while I have respect and admiration for Pale Fire, I do not love it. Lovely coloratura and trickery, but what else? My favorite Nabokov novel is Ada or Ardor: a Family Chronicle. (Mascodagama!) I no longer have a copy of it since my old one disintegrated. Maybe, if I keep on living, I’ll find another.

This one’s hard to explain. Why would anyone, anywhere, keep copies of these bleak and unpleasant stories? I’ve read these two works three different times, once in in the Seventies, once in the Nineties and just now again in the Teens. I have to say that every time I’ve read them I’ve been disappointed. And yet I’ve kept my copy for forty-five years.

Both stories are mostly about ugly thoughts, ugly feelings and the ugly and depressing events in the lives of losers. As David Yaffe put it, writing in the Partisan Review, West’s stories show “a sweeping rejection of political causes, religious faith, artistic redemption and romantic love.” As for the American Dream, West sees it as a kind of irremediable sickness, its promise corrupted by rigged economics and spiritual poverty. It ain’t pretty and there’s no way out. This message was never really popular with the book-buying public.

Among critics, though, West found many distinguished admirers. Early on, Dorothy Parker, Malcolm Crowley, and Edmund Wilson were all big fans. And thirty years after it was first published, the prominent critic Stanley Edgar Hymen said that Miss Lonelyhearts was one of the three best American novels of the first half of the twentieth century, the other two being The Sun Also Rises and The Great Gatsby. Matt Groening, creator of The Simpsons, is also a fan. He named one his own children Nathanael; and one of the most well-known characters in the world of television, Homer Simpson, bears the same name as the hapless hotel accountant in The Day of the Locust.

One component of my appreciation of and loyalty to Nathanael West has always been a certain snob appeal, a feeling that only really special people can appreciate his work and that I‘m one of them. Most people are afraid to face a truly radical critique of the ridiculousness and venality of our society, but not me. Most people don’t understand these books, but me and Dorothy Parker and Matt Groening–we get it. The critical thing about one’s collection of books is that it is a reflection of one’s personality; and if the collection contains only those books that the masses like, well, that’s a lot like having no personality at all. Can’t have that.

(But personality, like all possessions, is a burden.)

At the same time, West’s characters are vivid (vivid, that is, in their obscurity, banality, and cruelty) and many scenes are memorable. In The Day of the Locust I remember especially the endless, dreary party at Homer Simpson’s house, the re-enacted battle of Waterloo on the studio back lot, and the riotous crowd at the movie premiere, a scene full of real violence and at the same time empty of real meaning. And does anyone wonder what her supporters found to admire in the speeches of Sarah Palin? Listen to Tod Hacket, the protagonist of The Day of the Locust as he describes a similar speaker:

…The message he brought was one that an illiterate anchorite might have given to decadent Rome. It was a crazy jumble of dietary rules, economics and Biblical threats. He claimed to have seen the Tiger of Wrath stalking the walls of the citadel and the Jackal of Lust skulking in the shrubbery, and he connected these omens with “thirty dollars every Thursday” and meat eating.

Tod didn’t laugh at the man’s rhetoric. He knew it was unimportant. What mattered was his messianic rage and the emotional response of his hearers. They sprang to their feet, shaking their fists and shouting. On the altar someone began to beat a bass drum and soon the entire congregation was singing “Onward Christian Soldiers.”

I could go on, but let’s lighten up. Here’s Dorothy Parker’s take on life:

Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,                                                                                                  a medley of extemporanea,                                                                                                               And love is a thing that can never go wrong,                                                                            and I am Marie of Romania.

A few years after Riders of the Purple Sage, I read this rather different novel. The copy that I read then is the one that I still have, a plain looking Doubleday hardback with a grey cover. I was fifteen or sixteen at the time and I didn’t know what to make of it. It’s been a long time since then, but I think it’s fair to say that I was both attracted and repelled by this story of a seemingly powerless hero in a bleak world.

Philip K. Dick published the bulk of his work in the fifties, sixties and seventies. Since then there have been more than a dozen films and several TV series based on his work. Stephen Spielberg (Minority Report) , Paul Verhoeven (Total Recall),  and Ridley Scott (Blade Runner) are among those who have directed Dick inspired films. But the great majority of these adaptation were made  twenty or more years after the time the stories were written. It took a while for America to catch up to where Dick seemed to know it was headed. And the adaptations have not stopped yet. As I write this in early 2018, there continue to be new productions: HBO has just released a new season of The Man in the High Castle and Amazon Prime has just begun streaming a series called Philip K. Dick’s Electric Dreams which consists of ten one-hour films based on Dick short stories.

I read The Three Stigmata twice more over the course of time and with the dubious advantages of age and maturity, I came to see it as a story of how romance (in all senses) survives in a post-romantic world. This is perhaps a key problem for us now. The novel gives us a vision of a world dominated by faceless entities, a world in which many of the old social interactions have been replaced by impersonal encounters with machines. In this new world humans are still connected, but they are connected via totally new forms of social interaction, mediated by technology and controlled by corporations with their own agendas. Sound familiar?

In some sense, writers of historical fiction, science fiction and fantasy fiction aren’t really writing about the imaginary worlds that they create. Instead, they are using those worlds as metaphors to illuminate their own world–the world of their own time and place. The outrageous thing about The Three Stigmata is that some of the metaphors that Dick used to illuminate the early Sixties have turned out to so closely resemble actual things that happened to his world a half century after that time. In another 50 years will even more of his metaphors turn real? Or will all those artificial limbs and genetically restructured brains remain imaginary?

At fifteen, being both ignorant and innocent, I knew nothing of this. I didn’t much like or understand the ending of the book and I had little desire to read any more Dick novels. Still, I did not let go of that hardback copy.

And when I did read it again, I liked it much better and started to want a lot more of Philip K. Dick. I read several of his novels–he wrote tons–and at one point I had five or six of them in my 32 feet of books. Besides the Stigmata the only one I’ve kept is Clans of the Alphane Moon. It’s another first edition, but this one an Ace paperback from 1964. It has advertising pages that interrupt the text at pages 96 (Contac cold medicine, Black Velvet whiskey) and 128 (True cigarettes). The low-rent ambience of the edition complements the story quite nicely.

Clans is about a planet in the distant future that once was a galactic mental hospital but which eventually developed into an independent culture composed of half a dozen clans, each one descended from a different diagnosis and treatment group. And that’s just for starters. It turns out that their world is up for grabs in a galactic power struggle involving a number of typical Dickian characters. The world of Clans is definitely more complicated than that of Riders of the Purple Sage, but the underlying theme of the two novels is strangely similar–the quest for what Leonard Cohen called “a decent place to stand.” The two novels resolve that quest in fundamentally the same manner: by the main protagonist making a conscious choice to set himself apart from his society.

Is that what all these remaining novels have in common? Naw, that would be too easy. Still, çok ilginç as the Turks would say. Very interesting.

Zane Grey was born in Ohio and went to college on a baseball scholarship. He graduated with a degree in dentistry and set up a practice in New York City. He wrote a novel in his spare time, self-published it with his wife’s encouragement, and soon quit dentistry to write more novels. He is said to have been America’s first millionaire writer. My copy of Riders was published in 2002 and claims to be “unabridged and unaltered” from the original 1912 edition published by Harper and Brothers. I like the old style cowboy on this cover, but for some reason it reminds me that I’ve always found a mismatch between the book’s title and its narrative. The title makes me think of a largish group of cowboys, doing whatever groups of cowboys do. As it turns out the novel focuses more on individual challenges, both physical and moral.

 I was about twelve or thirteen when I first found Riders in the Carnegie Library in Ogden, Utah. I had very recently started coming upstairs to the adult section of the library. I remember being very nervous up there, especially the first time I went to check out. I still had my child’s library card and I couldn’t quite believe it was actually going to work. Then, as I handed over the two books I’d chosen, the librarian asked me why I wasn’t looking for books downstairs. I told her the truth, which was that I couldn’t find anything else interesting down there. That seemed to be a satisfactory answer; she calmly accepted my card and I never went downstairs again. On a subsequent visit she even let me check out a Simon Templar novel, though not without a small frown of disapproval and a comment to the effect that it might not be suitable for someone my age.

She had no such disapproval for Zane Grey. The library had a dozen or more Grey books, all in lovely matching hardbound editions. I must have read seven or eight of them during that period. Most of them weren’t very memorable. For quite a few years thereafter my sense of Zane Grey was that even though his books were in the adult section of the library, there was something unsophisticated about them; they weren’t children’s books, but they had an outmoded innocence that had little relevance to the modern world. But I did remember a few scenes from Riders. When I saw a copy in a used book store forty years later, I picked it up.

Upon rereading, I soon saw that the worldview of the novel was indeed far away from how we were thinking in the early sixties when I was twelve or in the early years of the 21st century when I was fifty-something. But the difference wasn’t amusing, it was sad. In the novel nature was real and powerful. The extremes of weather, the open spaces, and the shape of the plains and hills were all important; and the ways in which people responded to them defined those people in a very basic way. Morality was also very real to Grey’s heroes and heroines; they really, really cared about what was good. Nowadays we go on and on about the weather and some of us claim to revere nature, but neither has much effect on us really; we only measure ourselves against nature on our days off. We also think we care about morality, but we are awfully flexible really. It is almost as if the whole of the century that has passed since 1912 has seen a process of caring less and less about such things. I don’t say that people in 1912 behaved or thought exactly like Zane Grey characters, but they must have understood and valued them, at least enough to make their creator a millionaire. These days Zane Grey stories are pretty funny all right, but it’s our loss.

And of course Riders is hopelessly romantic, as I believe we are all meant to be. Be that as it may, the ending of the novel describes exactly what I have longed for all my life: to be far away from the grubbing and grasping, the crowing and the whining and the cant–to be far away from all that, but not to be alone.