Archive for April, 2008

Alice Adams Is a Debbie Downer

Posted in Alice Adams, Booth Tarkington with tags , on April 30, 2008 by Dreadful Penny

Let me start with Alice Adams’s main good point: it’s an extremely effective book. If its aim is to make the reader cringe, that is. Alice’s self-conscious striving and her mother’s prideful obliviousness make for a heady brew of uncomfortable situations. Observe this passage, wherein Alice must kill time while looking invulnerable during the dance that forms the first major set-piece in the book:

She had now to practice an art that affords but a limited variety of methods, even to the expert: the art of seeming to have an escort or partner when there is none. The practitioner must imply, merely by expression and attitude, that the supposed companion has left her for only a few moments, that she herself has sent him upon an errand; and, if possible, the minds of observers must be directed toward a conclusion that this errand of her devising is an amusing one; at all events, she is alone temporarily and of choice, not deserted. She awaits a devoted man who may return at any instant.

Other people desired to sit in Alice’s nook, but discovered her in occupancy. She had moved the vacant chair closer to her own, and she sat with her arm extended so that her hand, holding her lace kerchief, rested upon the back of this second chair, claiming it. Such a preëmption, like that of a traveller’s bag in the rack, was unquestionable; and, for additional evidence, sitting with her knees crossed, she kept one foot continuously moving a little, in cadence with the other, which tapped the floor. Moreover, she added a fine detail: her half-smile, with the under lip caught, seemed to struggle against repression, as if she found the service engaging her absent companion even more amusing than she would let him see when he returned: there was jovial intrigue of some sort afoot, evidently. Her eyes, beaming with secret fun, were averted from intruders, but sometimes, when couples approached, seeking possession of the nook, her thoughts about the absentee appeared to threaten her with outright laughter; and though one or two girls looked at her skeptically, as they turned away, their escorts felt no such doubts, and merely wondered what importantly funny affair Alice Adams was engaged in. She had learned to do it perfectly.

…The device of the absentee partner has the defect that it cannot be employed for longer than ten or fifteen minutes at a time, and it may not be repeated more than twice in one evening: a single repetition, indeed, is weak, and may prove a betrayal. Alice knew that her present performance could be effective during only this interval between dances; and though her eyes were guarded, she anxiously counted over the partnerless young men who lounged together in the doorways within her view.

Thank you, Mr. Tarkington, for recalling to me some of the more awkward moments in my past. (Not that I’ve ever been a turn-of-the-century cotillion wallflower, but let’s just figure that most book bloggers have suffered through at least one school dance holding up the wall. Perhaps, for example, an 8th-grade dance in which one’s quasi-date only danced with one for half of “Lady in Red” and one spent most of the evening drinking fifty-cent cups of orange soda and subsequently running to the bathroom. But one digresses.)

You have to imagine that Tarkington was a pretty damn fine observer of human foibles to be so spot-on here, but I wish he’d deployed it with greater sympathy towards his characters. I don’t get the sense that he finds Alice’s situation tragic, but rather appropriate comeuppance for a girl trying so blatantly to enter the upper class. It seems uncharitable to present the reader with so clearly painted an object of derision as poor Alice. So, alas, Tarkington’s ability to portray this kind of discomfort in attempted upward mobility also makes his book an extremely doleful read.

Alice Adams: Summary

Posted in Alice Adams, Booth Tarkington on April 25, 2008 by Diablevert

DP’s been sick and then on hols, so it’s been a bit lonesome round these parts. I believe she has a bit more to say on the erstwhile Age o’ Inn, which will doubtless be stimulating, but I can’t stand the tumbleweeds no more. And so it is my dreary duty to summarize for you Booth Tarkington’s Alice Adams.

Ah, Alice Adams. Let me just pause here a minute and fully savor my memories of it. Uck. Now I feel like I ought to spit.

The book concerns the career of one Alice Adams, natch, as she reaches a crucial turning point of her life. It’s the early 1900s, she’s in her early 20s, and in Middle American City (pssst…it’s Indianapolis, Tarkington’s home town) that means she’s got to find a guy to marry fairly quick, or she’s going to become an old maid. It doesn’t help that although she went to school and hung out with an upper-class crowd growing up, the city’s been growing and many of her friend’s families have been getting richer, while Alice’s dad is still stuck in the same high-level clerk job at the local factory that he’s had for years. Her old pals can afford cars, clothes and European vacations; Alice has to scrounge in the public parks for violets to make a bouquet to take with her to the dance she’s invited to in the opening scene of the book.

Luckily she still has her looks, however, which is enough to turn the head of a visiting stranger at that same dance, and when Alice runs into him in town the next day, she hooks in and starts doing her level best to charms the pants off him (not literally, it’s the Aughts). Arthur Russell, the smitten stranger, is due to become a partner at a big factory in town, and Alice knows he’s about her best ticket out of her folk’s house. So she does her best to conceal her family’s down-on-their heels status and keep Russell all to herself, warning him not to believe any talk he hears about her around town.

Meanwhile, her worrywart mother is leaning on her Dad to leave his comfortable position at his company and found a factory of his own, using an industrial formula he worked out on his employer’s behalf but which his boss has never developed. Mrs. Adams realizes that without a shit-ton more money coming in Alice is never going to marry a toff and their son Walter is never going to get to go to college (which doesn’t seem to bother him much; sneered at by the upper classes, Walter sneers right back, and spends his time hanging with a tough crowd from the other side of the tracks).

All this comes together in the book’s climax, when things between Alice and her beau have gotten serious enough that she has to invite him over to dinner to meet the folks. (Previously he’s never made it past the front porch.) Alice and her mom’s attempts at sparkle are rubbed off right quick to reveal the shabbiness underneath, giving Russell serious doubts about her suitability as bride. His former employer brings the hammer down on her Dad’s new business, smothering the thing in its cradle and wrecking the family finances. And brother Walter goes on the lam, as it’s revealed that he’s been nicking from the till at work to cover gambling debts.

And so the book ends with everything gone pear-shaped, and Alice staring at the stairs of the shop front business college, preparing for life as a secretary, while her broken family are preparing to take in borders to make the rent.

The Age of Innocence: In response to DP’s comment below

Posted in Edith Wharton, The Age of Innocence on April 11, 2008 by Diablevert

Penny said, below:

We know in Age that Newland and Ellen are both sexually experienced: Ellen through marriage, adultery, and whatever else was happening to her across the pond, and Newland through at least one affair with a married woman. But I still think that their entire affair together was conducted without much pleasure. All of the events unfold with their own momentum and that momentum doesn’t seem particularly driven by passion, but by escape from conformity.

See, now you’ve got me thinking about the mechanics of repression, which is what the whole book’s about — I just finished The Master by Colm Toibin, his imagining of Henry James (who was friends with EW in real life.) That book is all about repression too, but somehow you feel in Toibin that his Henry James is repressing himself, that when a young handsome sculptor comes to visit, HJ is consciously limiting his own thoughts about the sculptor, preventing himself from going there, from articulating his desire, even in thought.

After reading “Beatrice Palmato,” I’m not quite sure whether I ought to take Newland Archer the same way, whether what seems to me as a modern to be an absence is merely something unspoken — as almost everything is; every exchange between Newland and the Countess is about nine-tenths inference to one-tenth verbiage.

In many ways that’s what the whole book’s about; everybody infers everything, no one says anything. Newland’s jealousy of Julius Beaufort is all based in inference, not knowledge. That’s how reputations get ruined, in the book; you allow something to appear improper and everybody assumes that it is. The very first crisis in the book demonstrates the mechanics of inference. The Countess’ appearance at the opera prompts Newland’s decision to announce his engagement that same night. The two events have nothing to do with one another, superficially, but the latter is meant to send a message: Society is meant to infer that the link with the scandalous Countess will not cause Newland to regret or hesitate to ally himself with her family, and that the weight of the Archer clan will therefore be brought in defense of the alliance, so don’t no one think about snubbing her or May.

Which is a hell of a lot to suss out from a mere announcement. And as the book progress, and so many small gestures acquire more and more emotional weight, Wharton seems to realize this herself, and we get extraordinary moments like the one at the end of Chapter 26, when Newland has just told May he’s planning to go down to DC for a few days. He tells her it’s on business, but really it’s because the Countess is living there and he wants to warn her about a possible scandal that might involve her:

“The change will do you good,” she said simply, when he had finished; “and you must be sure to go and see Ellen,” she added, looking him straight in the eyes with her cloudless smile, and speaking in the tone she might have employed in urging him not to neglect some irksome family duty.
It was the only word that passed between them on the subject; but in the code in which they had both been trained it meant: “Of course you understand that I know all that people have been saying about Ellen, and heartily sympathise with my family in their effort to get her to return to her husband. I also know that, for some reason you have not chosen to tell me, you have advised her against this course, which all the older men of the family, as well as our grandmother, agree in approving; and that it is owing to your encouragement that Ellen defies us all, and exposes herself to the kind of criticism of which Mr. Sillerton Jackson probably gave you, this evening, the hint that has made you so irritable.… Hints have indeed not been wanting; but since you appear unwilling to take them from others, I offer you this one myself, in the only form in which well-bred people of our kind can communicate unpleasant things to each other: by letting you understand that I know you mean to see Ellen when you are in Washington, and are perhaps going there expressly for that purpose; and that, since you are sure to see her, I wish you to do so with my full and explicit approval—and to take the opportunity of letting her know what the course of conduct you have encouraged her in is likely to lead to.”
Her hand was still on the key of the lamp when the last word of this mute message reached him. She turned the wick down, lifted off the globe, and breathed on the sulky flame.
“They smell less if one blows them out,” she explained, with her bright housekeeping air. On the threshold she turned and paused for his kiss.

This is rather delicious— all through the book we have (as Newland does) been inclined to see May as rather dim, and here she reveals herself to be a good deal sharp enough to protect her interests— but it’s also bloody ridiculous. No reader could possibly infer from the dialogue all that Wharton lays out in her exposition of the subtext. And yet that moment is extraordinary; far more of the book is like the engagement scene than like this moment, with hints given and relationships sketched out but vast reams of subtextual meaning left as an exercise for the reader. It’s a rare thing for Wharton to cut in like this and provide direct color commentary, though such exposition does become more frequent and explicit as the book picks up the pace and heads for the climax. (Like the moment Penny points to in her post.)

So I guess what I’m saying is, I’m not sure how to take Newland and the Countess’ suppressed passion. Do they each know perfectly well they’d like to rip each other’s clothes off and jump bones, and Wharton expect us to infer same from her subtle hints? Or is it supposed to be that Newland and the Countess dare not admit to themselves that they’d like a little sumptin’ sumptin’ and so their love chats feel dry and disembodied, a flirtation of minds alone? Because I do think that their feelings for each other are obviously far more than physical: Each of them recognizes in the other a kindred spirit, someone who cares for art and thought, who sees clearly the limitations of the little world in which they live and longs to be free of them. Thus the passage towards the end of the novel which talks about the Countess living in Newland’s mind as a kind of idol, to whom he bring the offerings of his true self, the person to whom he imagines talking to about all the things he really cares about and feels.

I suppose it all gets down to what Wharton really means by innocence. In some ways, the book made more sense to me if you subtracted about a decade from the ages of all the characters…

The Age of Innocence: The Passion of Edith Wharton, or Money, Sex and Fur

Posted in Edith Wharton, The Age of Innocence on April 9, 2008 by Diablevert

Speaking of Wharton’s sense of sexual danger, how does softcore incest grab you?

The whole fur in a hot room motif appears again in “Beatrice Palmatto”, a pornographic fragment found among Wharton’s papers after her death: “The room was warm, and softly lit by one or two pink-shaded lamps. A little fire sparkled on the hearth, and a lustrous black bearskin run, on which a few purple velvet cushions had been flung, was spread out before it.” The cushions aren’t the only thing that ends up flung on the bearskin rug, shall we say.

(The entire 3-page excerpt may be found here in pdf form. Not something you’d want to be found reading at work, unless you work for Cinemax After Dark.)

I heard about Beatrice when I was googling about at bit after finishing the Age of Innocence — I often like to read reviews and criticism of a work just after I’ve done with it; it’s nice to bounce someone else’s ideas off your own — and fortunately Hermione Lee just wrote a new doorstop on Wharton last year, which was much reviewed.

When I heard about it, I immediately sought it out, because I was fascinated to see what the same woman who wrote something as uptight as the Age would make of an attempt to write some explicit erotica. Turns out she can manage to be quite straightforward if she likes. Which was interesting, and a good reminder of something to often forgotten: I think we moderns tend to feel that the people of previous centuries were as ignorant about sex as its utter absence in their published works would suggest, and that ain’t the case.

Obviously we acknowledge that they knew something of the matter: People continued to exist, after all. And because there was a great deal more repression in those days, there was definitely a lot more ignorance , especially for young people, than is the case today, when the most sheltered of sixth-graders is a google and click away from Dan Savage. But I still think there’s a sort general feeling when we read 19th century novels — particularly novels like the Age of Innocence — is that all these meaning glances across the room and opera fans brushing against thighs in apparently unstudied  manner and  glimpses of collarbone which give rise to a hard lump in the throat point to longing for the unknown, the undreamed of, the un-experienced.  When really it’s all solely unspoken, and when Newland eyes the Countess in the scene below

It was usual for ladies who received in the evenings to wear what were called “simple dinner dresses”: a close-fitting armour of whale-boned silk, slightly open in the neck, with lace ruffles filling in the crack, and tight sleeves with a flounce uncovering just enough wrist to show an Etruscan gold bracelet or a velvet band. But Madame Olenska, heedless of tradition, was attired in a long robe of red velvet bordered about the chin and down the front with glossy black fur. Archer remembered, on his last visit to Paris, seeing a portrait by the new painter, Carolus Duran, whose pictures were the sensation of the Salon, in which the lady wore one of these bold sheath-like robes with her chin nestling in fur. There was something perverse and provocative in the notion of fur worn in the evening in a heated drawing-room, and in the combination of a muffled throat and bare arms; but the effect was undeniably pleasing.

….he’s fully capable of imagining scene as perverse and pleasing as the one Wharton draws in Beatrice Palmatto.

Looks like we got one more…

Posted in Pulitzer History on April 7, 2008 by Diablevert

Congrats, Junot Díaz. I confess myself mildly intrigued by the prospect of reading Oscar Wao. I think all I know of you is from This American Life, the story about the pool table, and the semi-infamous “How to Date a Browngirl, Blackgirl, Whitegirl, or Halfie.”

The Age of Innocence: Bringing Sexy Back (What?)

Posted in Edith Wharton, The Age of Innocence with tags , on April 7, 2008 by Dreadful Penny

I was amazed at how much The Age of Innocence surprised me, especially for a book without much plot. All of the action in this story is what doesn’t happen, how events could unfold but never do. Wharton continually subverted my expectations; I kept waiting for someone’s resolve to crack into some passionate love-making (in the nineteenth-century sense) but the characters only falter, never fall into the abyss. It’s pretty incredible that Wharton’s sense of imminent sexual danger was able to come through to a modern reader who doesn’t inhabit the same stringent codes of morality.

There’s the other thing about Age o’ Inn.: these characters don’t seem to be people who think that sex is any fun. The most sensual image that I can recall is the line about “something perverse and provocative in the notion of fur worn in the evening in a heated drawing-room,” which is probably the least sexy thing I can imagine (and rather pungent). There are more sensuous descriptions of drawing-room furniture and floral bouquets than the human body. You don’t get any sense that Countess Olenska committed her past adultery out of a sense of hedonism so much as resignation. Newland seems tormented by his attraction to Ellen from the first. There is so little notion of a sexual relationship between Newland and May that when she announces her pregnancy, you have to wonder how they got around to sleeping together at all.

So Wharton takes this claustrophobia of desire and spins it out into a story in which the slightest action or thought outside of social norms becomes extremely dangerous. Whole monologues and dialogues are contained within gestures, Wharton acting as the interpreter for the reader, subtitling a look or a tilt of the head. For example:

After he had leaned out into the darkness for a few minutes he heard her say: “Newland! Do shut the window. You’ll catch your death.”

He pulled the sash down and turned back. “Catch my death!” he echoed; and he felt like adding: “But I’ve caught it already. I am dead—I’ve been dead for months and months.”

And suddenly the play of the word flashed up a wild suggestion. What if it were she who was dead! If she were going to die—to die soon—and leave him free! The sensation of standing there, in that warm familiar room, and looking at her, and wishing her dead, was so strange, so fascinating and overmastering, that its enormity did not immediately strike him. He simply felt that chance had given him a new possibility to which his sick soul might cling. Yes, May might die—people did: young people, healthy people like herself: she might die, and set him suddenly free.

She glanced up, and he saw by her widening eyes that there must be something strange in his own.

At this moment in the narrative, even though Newland had taken no other grand steps to further his affair with Ellen, I genuinely feared for May, that Newland had reached his breaking point and we were about to be plunged into a very different book. Maybe I’m just a gullible sucker, but I’d like to think that Wharton’s just that good.

Age of Innocence: Summary

Posted in Edith Wharton, The Age of Innocence on April 6, 2008 by Diablevert

This is a novel that makes life among the swells in Gilded Age New York seem about as appealing to the modern reader as being locked up in your room for the afternoon with nothing to read but the dictionary does to a nine-year old.

Newland Archer is our man. He’s a lawyer at conservative firm for the sake of having something to fill his days, and spends his nights as an adornment to the very select, very closed, very small Society that is old-money (old-ish, anyway) New York in the 1870s. As the novel opens he’s about to announce his engagement to May Welland, a nice young girl of “his set.”

A wrinkle in his smooth little life plan arrives in the form of the Countess Olenska, a first cousin of May’s who’s on the run from a husband back in Europe who is believed to be a mildly nasty piece of work — drinks, gambles, openly cheats on his wife — but then on the other hand it’s rumored that the Countess had some—male—help in getting away herself. Such rumors are enough to send a little frisson of scandal up the backs of the very proper society matrons who rule Newland’s little world—so much so that it looks as if they might cut the Countess dead, thus spattering May with a little disgrace herself. And so Newland is forced to get involved in the Countess’s affairs, advising her about how to navigate through the jewel-spangled piranha tank where he’s swum his whole life. But getting to know the bohemian Countess forces him to confront, and chafe against, the strictures of his familiar Society.

When he realizes he’s fallen in love with the Countess, he is forced to choose whether to follow his heart, break May’s and make himself a pariah, or obey the dictates of duty and custom, and lose his only chance at love. In fact, he’s forced to make that choice several times…

Three needs drive the actions of both Newland and the Countess:

— To be a decent and honorable by their own personal codes, that is, not to betray or to hurt the people who depend upon them and care for them;
—- To follow the customs of the larger society, in order not to make themselves, and more importantly, their families, an object of ridicule and censure;
—-To follow their hearts and their heads, to pursue their own happiness and peace.

The cleverness of Wharton is that she succeeds in the book in braiding all three strands of desire together, twisting the novel plot point by plot point so that just as you think one need will compel the characters to a given action, another takes precedence, and binds them tightly to another course.

Shorter This Post: The Modern Library Reader’s List Sucks.

Posted in The Modern Library on April 5, 2008 by Diablevert

Speaking of the Modern Library List, for sheezy, you’d think they could have done a better job of letting the reader’s list not get gamed. Ayn Rand in the top ten I could well believe. Ayn Rand 1 and 2? L. Ron Hubbard 3? Robert Heinlein seven times? I’d never heard of Nevil Shute, myself, who appears on the reader’s list three times, so I wiki’d him to see if I’d just be showing my ignorance or if he really was quite obscure. Well, I leave you to judge: “In the 50s and 60s he was one of the world’s best-selling popular novelists, although his popularity has declined. However, he retains a hard core of dedicated readers who share information through various web pages…”

I admit, this irks me. I’d really be curious to know what most people think the best books of the century are, and though I sympathize with the sci-fi and fantasy fanatics — for indeed, they suffer mightily from Rodney Dangerfield’s Complaint — this list reads like a flame war etched in stone.

The Magnificent Ambersons: The Title of This Recital Is “Ladies First”

Posted in Booth Tarkington, The Magnificent Ambersons with tags , on April 4, 2008 by Dreadful Penny

Diablevert has made some particularly convincing arguments for the merits of what I find to be a thoroughly mediocre book. And I’d like to thank her for that, because I definitely appreciate this book better for her comments on it. But I still do not think that it holds up ninety years later and probably did not deserve the Pulitzer (more on what did later, in a post on… drum-roll… Pulitzer history! Please, try to contain your excitement.)

Having gone through my English literature initiation at college in the late 90s, I think it’s nigh on impossible for me to write about a book without thinking how various schools of literary criticism would have a field day ripping it up. (This is probably why I stopped writing about books for a good long while.) Looking at this thing like you were a Marxist critic or a feminist critic… well, something’s rotten in the state of Denmark. (HA! Again, Hamlet references bring the flava.) Thinking about MagAm from a feminist perspective, in particular, gets my back up.

All of the women in the novel are shallowly drawn. You could say the same thing for the male characters too, but the boys are lucky enough to die quietly, off-stage, with a measure of solemnity or leave with a bit of worldly success intact. (Overlooking, as, alas, we may have to do right up through Gone with the Wind, anyone who is not white, for they haven’t been afforded success or dignity in any of these books to date.) The women of MagAmb are constellations and primary victims of George’s raging ego.

The three main female characters—George’s mother, Lucy, and Aunt Fanny—are all creatures governed by emotion and the men around them. George’s mother takes the “angel in the house” stereotype to the extreme, with her nearly erotic devotion to her son, following his every word as law to the point of ridiculousness. Aunt Fanny is often played for comic relief, until she’s retired on a spinster’s allotment and we are comforted with the fact that she was probably “better suited” to this meager life all along. Lucy, the spunky ingénue, starts off less blatantly typecast, but is stuck pining away for George at the end of the book for no good reason—maybe because she’s the only marriageable female in the book. One could say that the only impediment to their marriage was George’s lack of ambition, which is remedied by his new job as an explosions expert. But I’m gonna assume that the medicine of the time was not so great and Lucy was really signing up to be the lifelong caretaker of an invalid at the book’s glowing close. I agree that Tarkington has a strange affection for George, but I think his failings go way past callow youth, when you look at the amount of suffering he caused.

These are obvious points, and I would probably overlook them in a book that wowed me in another way—its wit, its poetry, its vividness. But I don’t get that from The Magnificent Ambersons, so what I’m left with leaves me cold. I just can’t see how it won both a Pulitzer prize and squeaked onto the list of the greatest novels of our time—Modern Library, that’s you I’m pointing a finger at.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.