When Cinema Gets to You First

Larry D. Moore CC BY-SA 3.0

Somehow, I was unaware that Jane Smiley's A Thousand Acres contained the story it does. I'd enjoyed a book of the author's short stories, and so when I saw the novel at a book sale a while ago, I grabbed it. When I dove in last night, I suddenly became aware on page eighteen that I knew what this was going to turn out to be; in this case, I'd seen that movie before.

Probably because my sister had subjected me to the film at the same time she also sat me down in front of One True Thing, the two got jumbled in my mind, and the former took on the name of the latter. (I'm not sure what happened in the ol' mental nether regions to the Anna Quindlen tale so rudely stripped of its identity.) But now that I know what I'm dealing with, I'm not really excited about seeing this through, in spite of the fact that Smiley's a good writer. I'm trying to pump myself up with things such as reminders that Greek tragedy is really just the same stories everyone already knew down to the last detail, but necessarily shaped into something original by each successive playwright who took on some heroic tale or gods-ridden nightmare. And I love me some Aristophanes and Sophocles, so what's the problem here?

The probable problem is the fact that I saw the Hollywood version of whatever Smiley produced first, and most likely in much better fashion. And so, if nothing else, I'm going to read this thing through to the end, in an attempt to establish the authorial superiority of the original. (Let's hope it happens.) There's a nagging reminder, though, of films that in my humble opinion, won out over their written source materials: Gone with the Wind, Old Yeller, Where the Red Fern Grows, The Firm. (Those middle two hold tenuous places in this list, since I watched and read all available versions of each multiple times-- but, with the exception of some vague hunting episode in Red Fern, when I think of both today, all I can come up with are scenes from the movies.)

So: I'll do my best to keep Michelle Pfeiffer et al out of my head while reading. (Already, I'm picturing the father with features completely unlike Jason Robards', so I'm optimistic about the success of said aim-- but, while looking this thing up on IMDB, was amazed to find that Colin Firth has a significant part in the film. Nice going, crappy memory.)

The Clash of Genres

Courtesy erinc salor

Courtesy Library of Congress

A word of advice: it's sheer folly to think that, after having viewed a Werner Herzog production and listened to the master's inimitably styled homilies, you can then move directly on to reading Carl Jung without any side effects. Just try to take seriously any disquisitions on the anima/us, and not hearing it all pronounced with the former luminary's wonderfully particular accent-- try, too, not to feel as if you're being taken for some sort of intelligently conceived ride.

The latter impression may have had a lot to do with the fact that I'd been watching Incident at Loch Ness-- the epitome of just excellent foolery.

Instructive Snippets and Possible Allegories (Seasoned with Some Crotchetiness)

I truly enjoyed getting through Julio Cortázar's Cronopios and Famas, even if, as happened with Beckett, I sometimes wasn't sure whether I possessed the necessary sophistication, let's call it, to be able to walk away and enlighten unversed readers with a confident exposition upon the significance of every last detail. What the hell, though; the collection was fun and often insightful.

I loved "The Instruction Manual," parts of which I read in a literature class in college, but didn't fully appreciate until this second time around. What may seem like simple quirkiness hides telling hints of the human condition-- as in "Instructions on How to Cry." Here, we're told that "In order to cry, steer the imagination toward yourself, and if this proves impossible owing to having contracted the habit of believing in the exterior world, think of a duck covered with ants or those gulfs in the Straits of Magellan into which no one sails ever." (6, italics in original)

Other than that curious-yet-effective reference to the lonely gulfs in the Straits of Magellan, what caught my attention is "the habit of believing in the exterior world." It doesn't sound to me like any sort of anti-empiricism, but an acknowledgment, rather, that what passes for being really important (what everyone says, the year's ten best buys-- "the exterior world") is all just a lot of bunk that distracts us from more essential things, such as self-knowledge and being at home in one's skin. You would think that an age of "personalized experiences" and Big Data, which encourages us to glorify ourselves and our immediate wants, wouldn't have to think twice about "steer[ing] the imagination toward yourself." But (and I'm about to give even more evidence that once a piece of writing escapes its creator's pen, it's fair game for public interpretation) this new version of self-centeredness seems to be displaying a pretty sad ability to imagine anything; in addition to the consumerism that makes us believe that uniqueness comes down to which mass-produced products we choose, imaginative capacities seem to be on the wane, when faced with cradle-to-grave screen time. (Among other reports/commentary, see here and here.)

Look, too, at what many of these instructions are for: naturally occurring actions such as crying, singing, being afraid. They're interspersed with activities, such as "dissect[ing] a ground owl," that seem to come out of left field. The jumble of natural and artificial and just plain weird advice seems to communicate just how much our contemporary screwed-up selves are in need of assistance in differentiating our proverbial asses from our elbows.

"Cronopios and Famas," too, was grand, with its cheerily clueless bourgeois famas, confident in their own goodwill. But what's been sticking with me today is "A Small Story Tending to Illustrate the Uncertainty of the Stability within Which We Like to Believe We Exist, or Laws Could Give Ground to the Exceptions, Unforeseen Disasters, or Improbabilities, and I Want to See You There." This little fictional world is filled with so many constantly productive scribes that the oceans, saturated with their output, turn to pulp, a phenomenon these hard workers then feel compelled to explain via more treatises, and so on and so forth. Whether Cortázar had academia or written output in general-- or neither-- in mind when he wrote this (in the early '60s), this mushy world, in which the overabundance of the written word is so unworthy of remembrance that the pages are used for building materials, seems to be an eerily apt allegory of the Information Age the author wouldn't live to see in its full flowering. What would he have done with the facts and sham-truths flying all over the place, accompanied by the voices of a thousand different commentators (why not include this blog in that mix?) who all feel obliged to put in their two cents, which in turn don't really contribute anything to the conversation, and will be forgotten within a matter of hours? What for the pre-digital world were mountains of wet paper, somewhat limited by the availability of materials, has now turned into a flood of disembodied data whose continual assault both pushes everyone into panic mode, thinking they have to stay on top of and contribute to it, and burdens everyone's spirit with the sheer, intangible weight of it all.

Admittedly, I may be feeling a little too biased toward the negative here, as my occasional book review gigs remind me of just how little of what gets hyped and fawned over will remain in the collective memory, much less continue to exercise any sort of influence one way or the other. But with such a small percentage of all this verbiage not even worth the time it takes to read it, I am heartened by the fact that Cortázar's often wacky meditations have continued to shoulder their way past huge mounds of effluvia.

George Steiner: Yeah, He's the Man

The master and his dashing red jacket, courtesy of CiênciaHoje.

How can one possibly sum up George Steiner? Neither I nor the collection of essays, originally published in 1967, known as Language and Silence, has the intention of doing so. What this book does make clear, though, is the breadth and depth of this guy's knowledge and insight. And even though the essays are approaching the half-century point in age, it's remarkable how relevant his thoughts about media and the printed word continue to be.

As only one example, take his assertion about the effects of language used in advertising and mass media-- that political speech (in this case, Eisenhower's) "was intended neither to communicate the critical truths of national life nor to quicken the mind of the hearer," but "to evade or gloss over the demands of meaning."(1) It not only nails contemporary (U.S.) political discourse; it also fits in well with a mental consortium of media critics such as Noam Chomsky, especially in his Manufacturing Consent. But Steiner goes further than Chomsky, or at least makes more explicit the almost spiritual effects technological changes do and will have on human beings. Foreseeing upcoming advances in mass communication-- although not visualizing, of course, the particulars of our current constantly connected world-- he comes right out with "behind the technical change [in literature and its form/s] lies the metaphysical shift" involved in closer identification with and formation by collective understandings and assumptions. (2)

Steiner knows and admits that much of his criticisms, at least about literature, are subjectively based, and that there's no way to prove, as opposed to those who buy into social scientism, that one work is better than another. And he's also not willing to sing the joys of art for art's sake, or to add his voice to a sort of "save the humanities" campaign based on the argument that good art/literature makes one a better person. His examination of cultivated Nazis and the artistically civilized milieux from which they came is too insightful to wave such a simplistic literature-boosting banner.

There's just too much in this collection of essays to address in any sort of satisfactory fashion.* But two little parts stood out for me, which somehow represent 1) what Steiner's about and 2) what his role may, fortunately or un-, be. First: in his discussion of nationalism ("the venom of our age") and the general situation of Jews, he declares that "The earth grows too crowded, too harassed by the shadow of famine, to waste soil on barbed wire." (3) Somehow, I feel as if Steiner's entire critical undertaking is devoted to some better, more truly humane world, a utopia to which we might be able to find our way through the Word.

But then, how many people really listen to highbrow essayists and literary critics, or care, other than the choir already set to sing their praises? When he describes Kafka's place in life, via a quote from Kierkegaard-- "An individual cannot assist or save a time, he can only express that it is lost"-- it seems that Steiner's describing his own efforts. (4) There's absolute value in such expression; among other things, that includes making 20th-century hold-outs like me feel a little less alone. Maybe that's why I feel so strongly drawn to this principled and intimidating (I'd be too terrified to meet the guy) giant of letters. He's one of a dying breed, and I can only hope the connection-addled world he foresaw in the 1960s doesn't become so distracted that it forgets the spirit of what Steiner represents.



*Because there really was no place to put this comment, I thought I'd include separately Steiner's claim that "The American writer... has found it difficult to achieve continuity, to make individual acts of invention part of a natural growth and completion... The history of the writer who produces a stunning first novel, whose second book is either a nervous pastiche of his own success or a botched fling at something new, and whose later work moves erratically between quality and routine, is almost an American cliché." (5) What I heard loud and clear in those couple of phrases was "Mark Z. Danielewski." House of Leaves: absolute brilliance, and among my top three favorite novels. His later stuff? Heartbreakingly unreadable, probably because it seemed to this humble reader that the guy thought he'd found a gimmick, and would just go with it.

(1) "The Retreat from the Word," 27.
(2) "Literature and Post-History," 387.
(3) "A Kind of Survivor," 152, 153.
(4) "K," 123.
(5) "Building a Monument," 288.

More Márai

After rounding up one more bag of book-loot yesterday (two worthwhile sales in two days!), I headed back to my lair to finish The Rebels. Things didn't, as I'd hoped, take any sort of sincerely sinister turn. Rather, what seemed initially to bear the beautiful-yet-horrific possibilities of a Young Törless turned out in the end to have settled for a somewhat vaguely-explained, not-truly-scandalous-or-memorable climax. As I noted in my brief Goodreads and LibraryThing reviews, Márai just didn't take things far enough or do them clearly enough. Not an unpleasant read, though; just an indication that the author could have been much bolder.

I'm not sure whether George Steiner has said anything about Márai (cursory investigations aren't turning anything up), but it would be interesting to hear his thoughts on the man and/or his work. I'm nearing the end of Steiner's Language and Silence, and although I can only take so much of literary criticism (an attitudinal stance I feel Steiner himself might oddly enough share or have shared at some point), his sometimes-curmudgeonly analysis of pretty much anything never fails to be engaging.

A Book Haul Aids in Rediscovery

Well, I got up early today and headed down to one of the city's convention spaces, where I queued dutifully with the other committed book dorks eager to get into a clearance event that actually required all the room set aside for it. Admittedly, it was mostly junk-- but I'm always willing to spend a couple of hours poring through supermarket pulp if I know there'll be gems tucked away between the latest teen vampire schlock and the mommy porn that acts as a follow-up to it.

I did score some excellent finds, and was glad to have them along when it was time for me to hand over my part of this give-and-take day. After my sport of a dad spent most of his time sitting off to the side, waiting for me to scrutinize every offering, I was well-armed with literature to get me through my own bench-dwelling at his natural gardening mecca. Finding a niche for myself among exuberant greenery, I opened up my $2 Flannery O'Connor collection, and was greeted, appropriately enough, by "The Geranium." OK, so the plot really had nothing much to do with plants at all, but I'll take neat coincidences when they come.

Source: Cmacauley

It's only been semi-recently that I've revisited O'Connor's stuff. Up until my early thirties, I just couldn't handle her characters and the situations they got into; even though I didn't grow up in her Southern gothic world, it felt all too familiar, in a very unwelcome way. Even an adored grad school prof's theological rapture at all these weird and disheartening goings-on-- which were most assuredly foreign to this Welshman-- did nothing to change my mind. But then a few years ago, a creative writing friend had me read "Good Country People"-- and the way O'Connor crafted that thing blew a mental gasket for me. It was almost as if the characters were simultaneously central and incidental, and I could almost see how the author had been laying out a brilliant step-by-step map for us the entire time.

Since then, I've approached her with ever less hesitation. An excerpt from her journals, featured in The New Yorker in September, more or less cured my case of the willies, even if I don't share her metaphysical viewpoint/s. And so, it was superb to have time today to let myself fall into "The Geranium" and "The Barber," the latter of which I found remarkable in its ability to convey the insecurities and not-quite disinterested liberal self-perception of the main character.

The strangely appropriate, though differently dated, feature of this whole situation was the fact that I was surrounded by rich neo-hippies out digging the floral vibes and doing what happens all too often in my hometown: namely, being assertively laid-back and super demonstrative about the fact that one is really digging the music being played, and hence, being true to the area's pride in valuing tunage, all the time, everywhere. (The book sale, for example, featured a band who kept trying to get the noses-in-spines crowd to get into the music.) The oddly apropos atmosphere made the blaring selection of Supertramp being piped through the tastefully hidden speakers a little easier to bear, able as I was to place at least a few inhabitants of real life in the barber's chair in lieu of Rayber.

All in all a good day, even if it brought out some of that snark that I wish could be more easily overcome with grace and understanding. I'm sure if I keep reading O'Connor, though, and read her truly, she'll be able to target my flare-ups of self-satisfaction with a nice dose of comeuppance.

A Hungarian Turn

After my adventures in Beckett, I've moved on to Sándor Márai's The Rebels, which I grabbed at a library sale a few years back. As happens with a lot of such purchases, at best, I'll skim the back or inside cover, but don't pay all that much attention to it, lest any surprises be ruined by a publisher's teaser and/or summary. And so, I'm not sure whether or not having dutifully imbibed the rundown before cracking this thing open would have made any difference to my expectations-- but after tooling through the first chapter with a three-star (out of five) rating in my mind, I was pleasantly intrigued to find in chapter two that this little story has moved in an unexpected, and possibly disconcerting, direction. Unfortunately, the page-turning marathon of the night before left me too tired to keep going last night, so I'll have to put my curiosity on hold for another few hours.

Is it wrong to keep my fingers crossed for sinister developments? I don't really think they'll ensue from this group of pretty average, restless boys-- but Márai's creepy-crawly signature, featured here on a statue dedicated to him in Košice, gives me the (unfounded) hope that such things will unfold: