Skip to main content

No better, no worse

West understood that mass culture had spawned a scary hunger for borrowed and processed "authenticity," and this makes his novels appear, in the words of the novelist Jonathan Lethem, "permanently oracular," anticipating such piranhaesque spectacles as reality TV and Gawker. Against the urge to idealize writers of the past, "Lonelyhearts" presents a portrait of a literary milieu as double-dealing, bitchy, hypocritical and self-deluding as pretty much every conglomeration of ambitious artists since the dawn of time. It certainly was no better than our own. The switcheroo?: Ours is no worse. (Laura Miller, “‘Lonely Hearts: The Screwball World of Nathanael West and Eileen McKenney,” Salon, 21 March 2010)

As soon as s/he was born, I was aware s/he would die

This week we learn that literary milieus – with people being people and all -- were, are, and always will be ambitious but also double-dealing, bitchy, hypocritical and self-deluding. Last week we learned that being adult means knowing enough of life to be respectful of its wounds, and enough of history to be leery of all ostensibly new, out-of-the-blue, grand and sweeping claims. The week previous, that genius may be more available than we thought, but only after a lifetime of hard, persistent and focused work (Einstein being the genius, not because he dreamed big, but because he persisted in his efforts longer than anyone else). Like the ’30s AND ’40s over the presuming, hard-playing, elder-mocking, juvenile ’20s, do you see yourself as a kind of vulture overhang -- part of the gallows and proof that nothing can be so brilliant that it can't be mastered and broken by something longer, deeper, and totally self-balking?

Link: "Lonelyhearts: The Screwball World of Nathanael West and Eileen McKenney" (Salon)


Popular posts from this blog

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …