Project Mailer - User contributions [en]

Talk:An American Dream Expanded/So Who's Not Mad

2019-04-24T19:10:02Z

Namir Riptide:

{{reply to|Dillbug|grlucas|JVbird|JenniferMGA|Mango Masala|Dmcgonagill|Sherita Sims-Jones|Waebo}} I know the formatting and all is off, but I was having a very hard time with it in my sandbox. I know today is the last day, but any help would be appreciated. thank you all for work that y'all have done . May your endeavors always be fruitful.

Talk:An American Dream Expanded/So Who's Not Mad

2019-04-24T19:06:42Z

Namir Riptide: calling out

{{reply to|Dillbug|grlucas|JVbird|JenniferMGA|Mango Masala|Dmcgonagill|Roger C. Byrd|Sherita Sims-Jones|Waebo}} I know the formatting and all is off, but I was having a very hard time with it in my sandbox. I know today is the last day, but any help would be appreciated. thank you all for work that y'all have done . May your endeavors always be fruitful.

An American Dream Expanded/So Who's Not Mad

2019-04-24T19:00:02Z

Namir Riptide: Added basice essay and coding

==SO WHO'S NOT MAD?==
===Lionel Abel===

On <i>Marat/Sade</i> and Nihilism <ref>The Persecution and Assassination of Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum at Charenton under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade. By Peter Weiss. Directed by Peter Brook. Martin Beck Theater, New York.</ref>

It was Susan Sontag, I think, who first pointed up the extreme theatricality of <i>Marat/Sade</i>. Susan Sontag was right, <i>Marat/Sade</i> is theatrical. Is the play dramatic, though? About this there seems to be some question in even Miss Sontag's mind. When she discussed the work in her Partisan Review article (Spring 1965) , the word "dramatic," scarcely used in her text, came up in this sentence: " . . . <i>Marat/Sade</i> is far from being the supreme masterpiece of contemporary dramatic literature, but it is scarcely a second-rate play." From which I infer that Miss Sontag herself has doubts as to the value of <i>Marat/Sade</i> as drama. My own opinion—which has the virtue at least of being settled—is that the play is indeed a "director's play," and owes most of its values of excitement and bravura to the staging and direction of Mr. Peter Brook. Whatever life <i>Marat/Sade</i> has on the stage comes, in my finding, from the devices of its director, not its author.
One could not say this were the play truly compelling. For certainly a play not soundly dramatic can do little more than hold its audience; the devices of a director can merely make a play bearable. To me, <i>Marat/Sade</i> was certainly bearable, but little more than that, except for a few moments. The first part was often tedious, and the second part a repetition of what is boring in the first. But what concerns me here is a general point, the difference between the theatrical and the dramatic.
When we find Marat on the Martin Beck stage, half of his body is enclosed in a metal bathtub, and the naked flesh of him that we do see is covered with large red spots. There he is, immobile, frail and blotched in his bath, stained by his disease. Now the effect is electric. But this effect lasts only for a moment, for Marat is going to speak. We want to hear what he says. And as we listen, we tend not to look at his red spots; but what he says is less interesting than the red spots, much less interesting humanly, much less interesting dramatically. His voice, which often rises to an orator's shout, somehow erases the strong effect the sight of his body first gave us. His is a theatrical presence, not a dramatic one.
To point up the contrast between the theatrical and the dramatic, one has only to think for a moment of Danton in Buechner's play, <i>Danton’s Death</i>. The real Danton, the Danton of history, was pockmarked, but Buechner in the directions for his work never insisted on representing him as such. For what interests us in the Danton of Buechner are the things Danton says, and were he presented with a pockmarked visage, the force of his lines would limit, make one forget, or even quite destroy, I think, any theatrical value his appearance with a pitted skin might have, just as the feebleness and platitudinousness of Marat's lines in <i>Marat/Sade</i> tend, as that play goes on, to destroy the theatrical effect our first sight of Marat, spotted and in his bathtub, gave. I suggest that the theatrical is something very different from the dramatic, and that it is finally dependent on the dramatic. A play in which the first is substituted for the second will tend to lose whatever value, as it goes on, it had at the start. This is what happens in <i>Marat/Sade</i>. Highly theatrical at the outset, never becoming dramatic, as it progresses it loses its theatricality. And not because the theatrical is contrary to the dramatic or in some sense its opposite. The theatrical sums itself up in one moment of time whereas the dramatic links into a culminating action many moments of time. When we speak of a coup de théâtre we have in mind an event which combines the theatrical with the dramatic, but the coup de théâtre simply cannot take place if some dramatic development has not prepared it. Now there is no coup de théâtre in the utterly theatrical play of Peter Weiss. In fact, the most theatrical thing about this play is its full title, which takes up about a minute's reading time. Read it: <i>The Persecution and Assassination of Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum at Charenton under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade</i>.
The idea that Sade might put on a play to be performed by the inmates of a lunatic asylum, and that in this play he and Marat might be the leading characters, is certainly a fascinating one suggesting a real drama. But no drama takes place in Peter Weiss's play. Sade tries to convert Marat, who does not listen to him. Why would he listen to the platitudes of sadism? Marat, totally unresponsive, declaims, in his turn, the political platitudes to which he remains committed. There is no yielding of one to the other, consequently there is no dramatic play between them. The author has said that the center of his play is an argument. Now I heard none. For in any true argument there is always a moment of wavering on the part of the one or the other. But in <i>Marat/Sade</i>, the Marquis is scarcely beguiling, and Marat never gives any indication of being beguiled.

Some, including Miss Sontag, have found a great theatrical interest in the fact that almost everyone on the stage is mad. I am inclined to think that this reveals in those who take such a view an ideological interest in the mad rather than an aesthetic or even psychologically normal response to madness. Anyone who has ever had a discussion with another person and noted or suspected at some point that the other was mad, must recall that with that thought or suspicion there was an immediate tendency to break off discussion. For one cannot know what a lunatic is thinking or feeling and the normal impulse is to detach oneself from any consideration of what may go on in his mind. And so it follows, however surprising this may be to some people, that madmen, though theatrical, are fundamentally undramatic and do not properly belong on the stage. A moment of madness, yes, particularly as expressed by someone whom we have seen as sane before, can have dramatic interest, and of course a sane man pretending madness is interesting. But real madmen, or persons presented as really mad, do not belong in any theater attended by people with a taste for drama.
Yet I must admit that the audience at the Martin Beck Theater does not reason as I do, and does not feel as I do. During the last moments of <i>Marat/Sade</i>, when the inmates of Charenton threw off all restraints and went berserk, there was an unmistakable feeling of solidarity with them on the part of the audience, so that for some moments I half expected whole groups to get up on stage and add their own versions to the outrageous "twist" Peter Brook designed. Why this fellow feeling for the mad? In answering this question, one can perhaps find some reason for the very great success of Peter Weiss's play.
Now the play is quite devoid of any intellectual meaning. Is Weiss trying to say that the content of history is sadism? This judgment might indeed make a play, and a challenging play, though I think the judgment false. In any case, Weiss has denied that this is his judgment. He asserts, "Everything irrational and absurd is foreign to me." He claims, also, to side with the platitudinous opinions uttered by Marat. Of course, none of Weiss's statements about his play need be taken seriously. In public interviews he has on the one hand described himself as a socialist, and on the other hand said that he considers socialism a failure. Such indecisiveness of judgment is hardly the sign of a superior sensitiveness to what, after judging, may remain ambiguous. Very probably, we can only learn about what is unresolvably ambiguous in politics and morals from someone whose moral and political position is clear. Certainly it would be unfair to confront Weiss's play with masterpieces like Dostoevsky's.<ref>Possibly referring to [[Fyodor Dostoevsky]]</ref> Nevertheless, the art of the Russian novelist did settle one question (there are some questions that have been settled) now being called upon by the partisans of <i>Marat/Sade</i>, notably its director, Mr. Peter Brook. What Dostoevsky's work proved, to those, of course, who know how to read him, is that one can choose finally—Dostoevsky chose Christ as against science and socialism—and yet acknowledge with full awareness all that is valid in what one rejects. No reader can be in doubt of Dostoevsky's judgment; he denies no reader a taste of the ambiguous. Bad or inconclusive thinking is hardly the best, or even a good way, to apprehend ambiguities.
But why the enthusiasm for <i>Marat/Sade</i>? Here, I think, we have to turn aside from the aesthetics of drama and look to the ideological motives of the play.

Let me go back to the frenetic response of certain members of the audience to the final scene of Marat/Sale. In that response there was a clearly articulated sympathy for madness. What sustains so peculiar, and to my mind unnatural, a sympathy?
Do people tend to think now that history is a madhouse? Or, to cite again Joyce's much-quoted phrase, a nightmare? In that case, why would they not want to wake up from it? I must also point out, that, when any strikingly leftist remark was made on the stage, the very same members of the audience who solidarized themselves with the stage's madmen again came to life with clapping and cheers. So there was a feeling in the theater for leftism plus madness, and I think this feeling is expressed in the play itself, whose two chief protagonists have the names Marat and Sade.
I suggest that the play appeals generally to those who have violent leftist notions and yet, like the author, think socialism a failure. In madness, one can combine such ideas.
However, the interest in madness presently expressed, and by a good many talented and intelligent people, may go far beyond the need to conciliate political leftism with despair of socialism. The frantic, the frenetic, the wild and outrageous are continually being stated as positive values nowadays, in literature, in the films, and on the stage. I recently saw an extremely clever French film in which the goal of the hero—he achieves it--is schizophrenia. The film is light, intelligent, ironical, and in that way pays tribute to French rationality, but it is an ironic tribute, for the real appeal of the film is in the figure of its protagonist finally at home in the white walls of an asylum. And if one correlates with a film of this kind, the various expressions of hysteria, irrational violence, homosexual hatred, and sheer nuttiness regularly expressed by our youngest writers, one has to look more deeply into what may have caused or promoted what now amounts to a powerful trend.
I have in mind <i>The White Negro</i>, that wacky though powerful essay by [[Norman Mailer]], in which our genial friend and Marxist gone haywire singled out psychopaths as the bearers of future values. In this piece, he also defended the courage of some tough young kids who beat up a weak old man. Now there was a time when courage was understood very differently. Not a few French knights in feudal times thought it unmanly to engage in combat when not outnumbered. I also have in mind Mailer's recent novel, <i>[[The American Dream]]</i>, in which the protagonist, Rojack, kills his wife and then immediately afterwards buggers their maid. I must note here that the deed is a variant of one in Jean Genet's <i>Querelle de Brest</i>. In that novel the young sailor Querelle, having killed a man, feels that he ought to pay for his crime, and has himself buggered by the local pimp. Thus buggered, Querelle becomes a marked man, an enculé, and for all eternity. So Querelle does not entirely escape the mark of Cain. Except that the mark Cain had to bear on his forehead is kept hidden by Genet's hero in his ass. Now Mailer's American hero, who kills as if Cain had never existed, appears, after his crime, like an innocent abroad; he has no feeling of guilt, no need for expiation. And how was Mailer's novel understood? When Philip Rahv attacked the book insofar as its hero is without any kind of conscience, his objection was met with derision, as if it were absurd to judge a fictional character morally! As if the best of our critics had not done just that, and ever since the novel came into being.

Or take Leslie Fiedler's article, <i>The Mutants</i>, published in the Fall 1965 <i>Partisan Review</i>. I heard Mr. Fiedler give that essay as a lecture at a conference at Rutger's University and so I can supply some additional data which may throw light on Mr. Fiedler's purposes; these, from his essay as published, may be unclear. In his essay, and also in his lecture, Mr. Fiedler quoted a contemporary kid as having said to him: "Freud is a fink." Now what interested Mr. Fiedler was not whether this judgment was true or false. What interested him was that a kid should say this, and I submit that if you look at Mr. Fiedler's article you will see that he is inclined to accept the kid's judgment. Why? At Rutgers Mr. Fiedler said in so many words, though I quote from memory—but there is a transcript of the discussion which may be checked—: "I myself have become as tired of the rationalism of Freud as of Marx." Is Freud then really a fink? And why did the young man Fiedler cited say so? The answer to this is not hard to find. Norman Brown, who has had a very great impact on many of our very young men, says in his now famous book that the insistence of many conventional American males on satisfying women sexually is a form of repression stemming from Freud, and something to be rejected in the name of freedom. So even fucking, in other words, is to Mr. Brown and to the young enlightened by him a bit too classical, just too upstanding)
I want to say something further about Mr. Fiedler's essay. According to him, the taking of drugs by the young is their expression, and main expression, of dissatisfaction with a boring and spiritually flat society. I will not go so far as to say that Mr. Fiedler recommends that the young take drugs, but I suggest that no one whose children are engaged in taking drugs should call on Mr. Fiedler to dissuade them from doing so. To take drugs, according to him, is to be an adventurer, and in a society in which little adventure is possible. It is to travel inwards, something very up-to-date, like the up-to-dateness of the cosmonauts who go towards outer space. Once again, I do not want to charge Mr. Fiedler with recommending the taking of drugs, but I think his whole essay is a confession that he cannot call upon one value in whose name he could oppose it. Why?

When there is a real trend, and I think I am talking about a real trend here, one has to look for something deeper to explain it than the views of those who represent it verbally, even with cleverness. It is not enough to call names as Philip Rahv did in his review of Norman Mailer's <i>The American Dream</i>. Nor is it enough to argue politically with the youth, as Irving Howe did in his article on the "new left." Call Mailer foolish or a bad novelist—the last he is not—and the young will still listen to him. Call the "new left" ahistorical, as Irving Howe did in his essay, and the youny will reply—they already have replied— with violence. Philip Rahv and Irving Howe are perfectly right, of course, but I can't help remembering Hegel's remark about Rome in its decadence. The philosophers were right, Hegel said, but the people were right not to listen to them.
Once again, what can be understood to lie behind the not always clear inclination of the contemporary youth for all forms of the irrational?
More than fifteen years ago, in Alexandre Kojève's extraordinary book, <i>An Introduction to the Reading of Hegel</i>, a work which has influenced all French thought, including Sartre's and Merleau-Ponty's, I read the following remarkable passage, the full meaning of which I confess not to have understood at the time and which I am here translating rather freely:
Philosophy has no sense or reason for being unless it can lead to Wisdom, or at least to the Sage, that is to say, to the Man of Wisdom. On the other hand, to believe that the Sage or Man of Wisdom is possible is to necessarily accept philosophy, understood as a means of attaining Wisdom, of realizing the Sage…
Now on the question of the Sage the only fundamental disagreement is between Plato and Hegel . . . Let us see what their disagreement amounts to. One can of course, with Plato, deny that Wisdom can be realized. Then we have an either/or. Either the ideal of the Sage is never and nowhere realized, and the Philosopher is simply a madman who pretends to be what he knows it is impossible to be. Or he is not a madman; and then his ideal of Wisdom is or will be realized, and his definition of the Sage or Man of Wisdom is or will be a truth.
But to deny the existence of wisdom realized, either in God, as with Plato, or in man, as with Hegel, means, according to Kojève, to say that the philosopher is a madman—in other words, that there is no difference between the madman and the philosopher. (One might add, between the philosopher and the criminal, and between the philosopher and the dope addict.) The point of view expressed here, and which is so pertinent, in my opinion, to our contemporary problems, may be summed up as follows: either God exists and perfection on earth is not required, or God does not exist and human life can be perfected. That is, philosophy is a reasonable pursuit. But if God does not exist (contrary to Plato), and if wisdom cannot be realized (contrary to Hegel), then the madmen, the criminals and dope addicts are as reasonable as the philosophers, and even more reasonable insofar as they do not attempt to philosophize.
Now, the final deliverance of this epoch is that God does not exist and that human life cannot ever be perfected and hence that the madman, the criminal, and the dope addict are not inferior to the philosopher. That is why it is so difficult to argue with a young student against taking drugs, not to speak of dissuading him from doing so. Can one say to him that God exists? No. Can one say to him that society can be perfected? No. (It will not do, according to Kojève, to say that society can be somewhat improved.) Then can one say that the philosopher is better than the drug addict? No. Or better than the criminal or the madman? Again no. It is the vague recognition, I will not call it knowledge, that no one to be respected can answer these questions affirmatively which emboldens our contemporary youth and makes them so rash and so sad.
Obviously our dilemma was not new in the Russia of the 1860's. What is new, though, is the impact on a mass society of the issue of belief which Dostoevsky raised. Do we today believe in God or in man? And by "we" I mean the masses, I mean the many, the millions. For there are many Raskolnikovs among us and many more Rojacks. In fact, to appreciate fully the effect on the masses of our spiritual dilemma and the receptivity of present day society to any and all answers, no matter how drastic, one has only to think of a contemporary Dr. Raskolnikov giving a seminar on the Double Meaning of Killing Two Pawnbrokers, or of a Dr. Rojack lecturing at an honored university on Why It Is Not Wrong to Kill One's Wife. Say that Norman Mailer is no Dostoevsky, who's going to say he is? But to say that he is not is to discriminate, and the whole question now is whether discrimination is valid. As for Mailer, his excesses in thinking were prophesied, I believe, in James Joyce's <i>Ulysses</i>. When Bloom, about to fall asleep, plays with variations on the name Sindbad, calling up Ninbad the Nailer, Tinbad the Tailor, and Binbad the Bailer, he suddenly becomes less lethargic, somewhat more caustic, and gets to the name we know and he didn't: our contemporary to him is Mindbad the Mailer.
But never mind Mindbad. The question is not whether Mailer is intelligent, but whether intelligence counts any more. The argument for intelligence, that is for philosophy—and by philosophy I mean the taking up of any topic, art, morals or politics, with a sincere intent to be reasonable—was, I once thought, stated forever by Aristotle. He said: if you want to philosophize, then let us philosophize; and if you don't want to philosophize, you still have to philosophize. But who in philosophy feels he has to philosophize nowadays?
In fact, our young philosophers are dulled, I believe, by their aim, which is only to be bright, that is brighter than other philosophers. And the brightest and most intolerable of all philosophers in recent times was Ludwig Wittgenstein, who said against philosophy what no philosopher ever said before him: Philosophy is Hell. For why undertake the great labor of reasoning if reason is futile, if wisdom is unrealizable, and if the philosopher is no better than the madman, the criminal, or the addict? Why? Genet is a problem to Sartre, the philosopher, who devoted a book of over 600 pages to explaining him. Sartre, as all the young know now, is no problem to Genet.
But to get back to Weiss's play. It is my assumption that the depth of the contemporary situation is there and present whenever the least conscious members of the audience at <i>Marat/Sade</i> respond to that work as they do and empathize with its moments of madness. I know I could argue with them about the aesthetics of drama, dispute and even refute their notions of taste, but how am I going to refute their spontaneous identification with the mad figures tumbling convulsively at the play's end across the stage?

User:Namir Riptide/sandbox

2019-04-21T18:21:58Z

Namir Riptide: /* SO WHO'S NOT MAD? */random dashes + coding fix

User:Namir Riptide/sandbox

2019-04-21T18:05:22Z

Namir Riptide: /* SO WHO'S NOT MAD? */coding additions

==SO WHO'S NOT MAD?==
===Lionel Abel===

On <i>Marat/Sade</i> and Nihilism <ref>The Persecution and Assassination of Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum at Charenton under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade. By Peter Weiss. Directed by Peter Brook. Martin Beck Theater, New York.</ref>

It was Susan Sontag, I think, who first pointed up the extreme theatricality of <i>Marat/Sade</i>. Susan Sontag was right, <i>Marat/Sade</i> is theatrical. Is the play dramatic, though? About this there seems to be some question in even Miss Sontag's mind. When she discussed the work in her Partisan Review article (Spring 1965) , the word "dramatic," scarcely used in her text, came up in this sentence: " . . . <i>Marat/Sade</i> is far from being the supreme masterpiece of contemporary dramatic literature, but it is scarcely a second-rate play." From which I infer that Miss Sontag herself has doubts as to the value of <i>Marat/Sade</i> as drama. My own opinion—which has the virtue at least of being settled—is that the play is indeed a "director's play," and owes most of its values of excitement and bravura to the staging and direction of Mr. Peter Brook. Whatever life <i>Marat/Sade</i> has on the stage comes, in my finding, from the devices of its director, not its author.
One could not say this were the play truly compelling. For certainly a play not soundly dramatic can do little more than hold its audience; the devices of a director can merely make a play bearable. To me, <i>Marat/Sade</i> was certainly bearable, but little more than that, except for a few moments. The first part was often tedious, and the second part a repetition of what is boring in the first. But what concerns me here is a general point, the difference between the theatrical and the dramatic.
When we find Marat on the Martin Beck stage, half of his body is enclosed in a metal bathtub, and the naked flesh of him that we do see is covered with large red spots. There he is, immobile, frail and blotched in his bath, stained by his disease. Now the effect is electric. But this effect lasts only for a moment, for Marat is going to speak. We want to hear what he says. And as we listen, we tend not to look at his red spots; but what he says is less interesting than the red spots, much less interesting humanly, much less interesting dramatically. His voice, which often rises to an orator's shout, somehow erases the strong effect the sight of his body first gave us. His is a theatrical presence, not a dramatic one.
To point up the contrast between the theatrical and the dramatic, one has only to think for a moment of Danton in Buechner's play, <i>Danton’s Death</i>. The real Danton, the Danton of history, was pock- marked, but Buechner in the directions for his work never insisted on representing him as such. For what interests us in the Danton of Buechner are the things Danton says, and were he presented with a pockmarked visage, the force of his lines would limit, make one forget, or even quite destroy, I think, any theatrical value his appearance with a pitted skin might have, just as the feebleness and platitudinousness of Marat's lines in <i>Marat/Sade</i> tend, as that play goes on, to destroy the theatrical effect our first sight of Marat, spotted and in his bathtub, gave. I suggest that the theatrical is something very different from the dramatic, and that it is finally dependent on the dramatic. A play in which the first is substituted for the second will tend to lose what- ever value, as it goes on, it had at the start. This is what happens in <i>Marat/Sade</i>. Highly theatrical at the outset, never becoming dramatic, as it progresses it loses its theatricality. And not because the theatrical is contrary to the dramatic or in some sense its opposite. The theatrical sums itself up in one moment of time whereas the dramatic links into a culminating action many moments of time. When we speak of a coup de théâtre we have in mind an event which combines the theatrical with the dramatic, but the coup de théâtre simply cannot take place if some dramatic development has not prepared it. Now there is no coup de théâtre in the utterly theatrical play of Peter Weiss. In fact, the most theatrical thing about this play is its full title, which takes up about a minute's reading time. Read it: <i>The Persecution and Assassination of Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum at Charenton under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade</i>.
The idea that Sade might put on a play to be performed by the inmates of a lunatic asylum, and that in this play he and Marat might be the leading characters, is certainly a fascinating one suggesting a real drama. But no drama takes place in Peter Weiss's play. Sade tries to convert Marat, who does not listen to him. Why would he listen to the platitudes of sadism? Marat, totally unresponsive, declaims, in his turn, the political platitudes to which he remains committed. There is no yielding of one to the other, consequently there is no dramatic play between them. The author has said that the center of his play is an argument. Now I heard none. For in any true argument there is always a moment of wavering on the part of the one or the other. But in <i>Marat/Sade</i>, the Marquis is scarcely beguiling, and Marat never gives any indication of being beguiled.

Some, including Miss Sontag, have found a great theatrical interest in the fact that almost everyone on the stage is mad. I am inclined to think that this reveals in those who take such a view an ideological interest in the mad rather than an aesthetic or even psychologically normal response to madness. Anyone who has ever had a discussion with another person and noted or suspected at some point that the other was mad, must recall that with that thought or suspicion there was an immediate tendency to break off discussion. For one cannot know what a lunatic is thinking or feeling and the normal impulse is to detach oneself from any consideration of what may go on in his mind. And so it follows, however surprising this may be to some people, that madmen, though theatrical, are fundamentally undramatic and do not properly belong on the stage. A moment of madness, yes, particularly as expressed by someone whom we have seen as sane before, can have dramatic interest, and of course a sane man pretending madness is interesting. But real madmen, or persons presented as really mad, do not belong in any theater attended by people with a taste for drama.
Yet I must admit that the audience at the Martin Beck Theater does not reason as I do, and does not feel as I do. During the last moments of <i>Marat/Sade</i>, when the inmates of Charenton threw off all restraints and went berserk, there was an unmistakable feeling of solidarity with them on the part of the audience, so that for some moments I half expected whole groups to get up on stage and add their own versions to the outrageous "twist" Peter Brook designed. Why this fellow feeling for the mad? In answering this question, one can per- haps find some reason for the very great success of Peter Weiss's play.
Now the play is quite devoid of any intellectual meaning. Is Weiss trying to say that the content of history is sadism? This judgment might indeed make a play, and a challenging play, though I think the judgment false. In any case, Weiss has denied that this is his judgment. He asserts, "Everything irrational and absurd is foreign to me." He claims, also, to side with the platitudinous opinions uttered by Marat. Of course, none of Weiss's statements about his play need be taken seriously. In public interviews he has on the one hand described himself as a socialist, and on the other hand said that he considers socialism a failure. Such indecisiveness of judgment is hardly the sign of a superior sensitiveness to what, after judging, may remain ambiguous. Very probably, we can only learn about what is unresolvably ambiguous in politics and morals from someone whose moral and political position is clear. Certainly it would be unfair to confront Weiss's play with masterpieces like Dostoevsky's.<ref>Possibly referring to <ref>Fyodor Dostoevsky</ref> </ref>Nevertheless, the art of the Russian novelist did settle one question (there are some questions that have been settled) now being called upon by the partisans of <i>Marat/Sade</i>, notably its director, Mr. Peter Brook. What Dostoevsky's work proved, to those, of course, who know how to read him, is that one can choose finally—Dostoevsky chose Christ as against science and socialism—and yet acknowledge with full awareness all that is valid in what one rejects. No reader can be in doubt of Dostoevsky's judgment; he denies no reader a taste of the ambiguous. Bad or inconclusive thinking is hardly the best, or even a good way, to apprehend ambiguities.
But why the enthusiasm for <i>Marat/Sade</i>? Here, I think, we have to turn aside from the aesthetics of drama and look to the ideological motives of the play.

Let me go back to the frenetic response of certain members of the audience to the final scene of Marat/Sale. In that response there was a clearly articulated sympathy for madness. What sustains so peculiar, and to my mind unnatural, a sympathy?
Do people tend to think now that history is a madhouse? Or, to cite again Joyce's much-quoted phrase, a nightmare? In that case, why would they not want to wake up from it? I must also point out, that, when any strikingly leftist remark was made on the stage, the very same members of the audience who solidarized themselves with the stage's madmen again came to life with clapping and cheers. So there was a feeling in the theater for leftism plus madness, and I think this feel- ing is expressed in the play itself, whose two chief protagonists have the names Marat and Sade.
I suggest that the play appeals generally to those who have violent leftist notions and yet, like the author, think socialism a failure. In madness, one can combine such ideas.
However, the interest in madness presently expressed, and by a good many talented and intelligent people, may go far beyond the need to conciliate political leftism with despair of socialism. The frantic, the frenetic, the wild and outrageous are continually being stated as positive values nowadays, in literature, in the films, and on the stage. I recently saw an extremely clever French film in which the goal of the hero—he achieves it--is schizophrenia. The film is light, intelligent, ironical, and in that way pays tribute to French rationality, but it is an ironic tribute, for the real appeal of the film is in the figure of its protagonist finally at home in the white walls of an asylum. And if one correlates with a film of this kind, the various expressions of hysteria, irrational violence, homosexual hatred, and sheer nuttiness regularly ex- pressed by our youngest writers, one has to look more deeply into what may have caused or promoted what now amounts to a powerful trend.
I have in mind <i>The White Negro</i>, that wacky though powerful essay by [[Norman Mailer]], in which our genial friend and Marxist gone haywire singled out psychopaths as the bearers of future values. In this piece, he also defended the courage of some tough young kids who beat up a weak old man. Now there was a time when courage was understood very differently. Not a few French knights in feudal times thought it unmanly to engage in combat when not outnumbered. I also have in mind Mailer's recent novel, <i>[[The American Dream]]</i>, in which the protagonist, Rojack, kills his wife and then immediately afterwards buggers their maid. I must note here that the deed is a variant of one in Jean Genet's <i>Querelle de Brest</i>. In that novel the young sailor Querelle, having killed a man, feels that he ought to pay for his crime, and has himself buggered by the local pimp. Thus buggered, Querelle becomes a marked man, an enculé, and for all eternity. So Querelle does not entirely escape the mark of Cain. Except that the mark Cain had to bear on his forehead is kept hidden by Genet's hero in his ass. Now Mailer's American hero, who kills as if Cain had never existed, appears, after his crime, like an innocent abroad; he has no feeling of guilt, no need for expiation. And how was Mailer's novel understood? When Philip Rahv attacked the book insofar as its hero is without any kind of con- science, his objection was met with derision, as if it were absurd to judge a fictional character morally! As if the best of our critics had not done just that, and ever since the novel came into being.

Or take Leslie Fiedler's article, <i>The Mutants</i>, published in the Fall 1965 <i>Partisan Review</i>. I heard Mr. Fiedler give that essay as a lecture at a conference at Rutger's University and so I can supply some additional data which may throw light on Mr. Fiedler's purposes; these, from his essay as published, may be unclear. In his essay, and also in his lecture, Mr. Fiedler quoted a contemporary kid as having said to him: "Freud is a fink." Now what interested Mr. Fiedler was not whether this judgment was true or false. What interested him was that a kid should say this, and I submit that if you look at Mr. Fiedler's article you will see that he is inclined to accept the kid's judgment. Why? At Rutgers Mr. Fiedler said in so many words, though I quote from memory—but there is a transcript of the discussion which may be checked—: "I myself have become as tired of the rationalism of Freud as of Marx." Is Freud then really a fink? And why did the young man Fiedler cited say so? The answer to this is not hard to find. Norman Brown, who has had a very great impact on many of our very young men, says in his now famous book that the insistence of many conventional American males on satisfying women sexually is a form of repression stemming from Freud, and something to be rejected in the name of freedom. So even fucking, in other words, is to Mr. Brown and to the young enlightened by him a bit too classical, just too upstanding)
I want to say something further about Mr. Fiedler's essay. Accord- ing to him, the taking of drugs by the young is their expression, and main expression, of dissatisfaction with a boring and spiritually flat society. I will not go so far as to say that Mr. Fiedler recommends that the young take drugs, but I suggest that no one whose children are engaged in taking drugs should call on Mr. Fiedler to dissuade them from doing so. To take drugs, according to him, is to be an ad- venturer, and in a society in which little adventure is possible. It is to travel inwards, something very up-to-date, like the up-to-dateness of the cosmonauts who go towards outer space. Once again, I do not want to charge Mr. Fiedler with recommending the taking of drugs, but I think his whole essay is a confession that he cannot call upon one value in whose name he could oppose it. Why?

When there is a real trend, and I think I am talking about a real trend here, one has to look for something deeper to explain it than the views of those who represent it verbally, even with cleverness. It is not enough to call names as Philip Rahv did in his review of Norman Mailer's <i>The American Dream</i>. Nor is it enough to argue politically with the youth, as Irving Howe did in his article on the "new left." Call Mailer foolish or a bad novelist—the last he is not—and the young will still listen to him. Call the "new left" ahistorical, as Irving Howe did in his essay, and the youny will reply—they already have replied— with violence. Philip Rahv and Irving Howe are perfectly right, of course, but I can't help remembering Hegel's remark about Rome in its decadence. The philosophers were right, Hegel said, but the people were right not to listen to them.
Once again, what can be understood to lie behind the not always clear inclination of the contemporary youth for all forms of the irrational?
More than fifteen years ago, in Alexandre Kojève's extraordinary book, <i>An Introduction to the Reading of Hegel</i>, a work which has influenced all French thought, including Sartre's and Merleau-Ponty's, I read the following remarkable passage, the full meaning of which I confess not to have understood at the time and which I am here translating rather freely:
Philosophy has no sense or reason for being unless it can lead to Wisdom, or at least to the Sage, that is to say, to the Man of Wisdom. On the other hand, to believe that the Sage or Man of Wisdom is possible is to necessarily accept philosophy, understood as a means of attaining Wisdom, of realizing the Sage…
Now on the question of the Sage the only fundamental disagreement is between Plato and Hegel . . . Let us see what their disagreement amounts to. One can of course, with Plato, deny that Wisdom can be realized. Then we have an either/or. Either the ideal of the Sage is never and nowhere realized, and the Philosopher is simply a madman who pretends to be what he knows it is impossible to be. Or he is not a madman; and then his ideal of Wisdom is or will be realized, and his definition of the Sage or Man of Wisdom is or will be a truth.
But to deny the existence of wisdom realized, either in God, as with Plato, or in man, as with Hegel, means, according to Kojève, to say that the philosopher is a madman—in other words, that there is no difference between the madman and the philosopher. (One might add, between the philosopher and the criminal, and between the philosopher and the dope addict.) The point of view expressed here, and which is so pertinent, in my opinion, to our contemporary problems, may be summed up as follows: either God exists and perfection on earth is not required, or God does not exist and human life can be perfected. That is, philosophy is a reasonable pursuit. But if God does not exist (contrary to Plato), and if wisdom cannot be realized (contrary to Hegel), then the madmen, the criminals and dope addicts are as reasonable as the philosophers, and even more reasonable insofar as they do not attempt to philosophize.
Now, the final deliverance of this epoch is that God does not exist and that human life cannot ever be perfected and hence that the mad- man, the criminal, and the dope addict are not inferior to the philosopher. That is why it is so difficult to argue with a young student against taking drugs, not to speak of dissuading him from doing so. Can one say to him that God exists? No. Can one say to him that society can be perfected? No. (It will not do, according to Kojève, to say that society can be somewhat improved.) Then can one say that the philosopher is better than the drug addict? No. Or better than the criminal or the madman? Again no. It is the vague recognition, I will not call it knowledge, that no one to be respected can answer these questions affirmatively which emboldens our contemporary youth and makes them so rash and so sad.
Obviously our dilemma was not new in the Russia of the 1860's. What is new, though, is the impact on a mass society of the issue of belief which Dostoevsky raised. Do we today believe in God or in man? And by "we" I mean the masses, I mean the many, the millions. For there are many Raskolnikovs among us and many more Rojacks. In fact, to appreciate fully the effect on the masses of our spiritual dilemma and the receptivity of present-day society to any and all answers, no matter how drastic, one has only to think of a contemporary Dr. Raskolnikov giving a seminar on the Double Meaning of Killing Two Pawnbrokers, or of a Dr. Rojack lecturing at an honored university on Why It Is Not Wrong to Kill One's Wife. Say that Norman Mailer is no Dostoevsky, who's going to say he is? But to say that he is not is to discriminate, and the whole question now is whether discrimination is valid. As for Mailer, his excesses in thinking were prophesied, I believe, in James Joyce's <i>Ulysses</i>. When Bloom, about to fall asleep, plays with variations on the name Sindbad, calling up Ninbad the Nailer, Tinbad the Tailor, and Binbad the Bailer, he suddenly becomes less lethargic, somewhat more caustic, and gets to the name we know and he didn't: our contemporary to him is Mindbad the Mailer.
But never mind Mindbad. The question is not whether Mailer is intelligent, but whether intelligence counts any more. The argument for intelligence, that is for philosophy—and by philosophy I mean the taking up of any topic, art, morals or politics, with a sincere intent to be reasonable—was, I once thought, stated forever by Aristotle. He said: if you want to philosophize, then let us philosophize; and if you don't want to philosophize, you still have to philosophize. But who in philosophy feels he has to philosophize nowadays?
In fact, our young philosophers are dulled, I believe, by their aim, which is only to be bright, that is brighter than other philosophers. And the brightest and most intolerable of all philosophers in recent times was Ludwig Wittgenstein, who said against philosophy what no philosopher ever said before him: Philosophy is Hell. For why under- take the great labor of reasoning if reason is futile, if wisdom is unrealizable, and if the philosopher is no better than the madman, the criminal, or the addict? Why? Genet is a problem to Sartre, the philosopher, who devoted a book of over 600 pages to explaining him. Sartre, as all the young know now, is no problem to Genet.
But to get back to Weiss's play. It is my assumption that the depth of the contemporary situation is there and present whenever the least conscious members of the audience at <i>Marat/Sade</i> respond to that work as they do and empathize with its moments of madness. I know I could argue with them about the aesthetics of drama, dispute and even refute their notions of taste, but how am I going to refute their spontaneous identification with the mad figures tumbling convulsively at the play's end across the stage?

User:Namir Riptide/sandbox

2019-04-21T17:45:05Z

Namir Riptide: /* SO WHO'S NOT MAD? */ worked on marking up

==SO WHO'S NOT MAD?==
===Lionel Abel===

On Marat/Sade and Nihilism <ref>The Persecution and Assassination of Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum at Charenton under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade. By Peter Weiss. Directed by Peter Brook. Martin Beck Theater, New York.</ref>

It was Susan Sontag, I think, who first pointed up the extreme theatricality of Marat/Sade. Susan Sontag was right, Marat/ Sade is theatrical. Is the play dramatic, though? About this there seems to be some question in even Miss Sontag's mind. When she discussed the work in her Partisan Review article (Spring 1965) , the word "dramatic," scarcely used in her text, came up in this sentence: " . . . Marat/Sade is far from being the supreme masterpiece of contemporary dramatic literature, but it is scarcely a second-rate play." From which I infer that Miss Sontag herself has doubts as to the value of Marat/Sade as drama. My own opinion—which has the virtue at least of being settled—is that the play is indeed a "director's play," and owes most of its values of excitement and bravura to the staging and direction of Mr. Peter Brook. Whatever life Marat/Sade has on the stage comes, in my finding, from the devices of its director, not its author.
One could not say this were the play truly compelling. For certainly a play not soundly dramatic can do little more than hold its audience; the devices of a director can merely make a play bearable. To me, Marat/Sade was certainly bearable, but little more than that, except for a few moments. The first part was often tedious, and the second part a repetition of what is boring in the first. But what concerns me here is a general point, the difference between the theatrical and the dramatic.
When we find Marat on the Martin Beck stage, half of his body is enclosed in a metal bathtub, and the naked flesh of him that we do see is covered with large red spots. There he is, immobile, frail and blotched in his bath, stained by his disease. Now the effect is electric. But this effect lasts only for a moment, for Marat is going to speak. We want to hear what he says. And as we listen, we tend not to look at his red spots; but what he says is less interesting than the red spots, much less interesting humanly, much less interesting dramatically. His voice, which often rises to an orator's shout, somehow erases the strong effect the sight of his body first gave us. His is a theatrical presence, not a dramatic one.
To point up the contrast between the theatrical and the dramatic, one has only to think for a moment of Danton in Buechner's play, Danton’s Death. The real Danton, the Danton of history, was pock- marked, but Buechner in the directions for his work never insisted on representing him as such. For what interests us in the Danton of Buechner are the things Danton says, and were he presented with a pockmarked visage, the force of his lines would limit, make one forget, or even quite destroy, I think, any theatrical value his appearance with a pitted skin might have, just as the feebleness and platitudinousness of Marat's lines in Marat/Sade tend, as that play goes on, to destroy the theatrical effect our first sight of Marat, spotted and in his bathtub, gave. I suggest that the theatrical is something very different from the dramatic, and that it is finally dependent on the dramatic. A play in which the first is substituted for the second will tend to lose what- ever value, as it goes on, it had at the start. This is what happens in Marat/Sade. Highly theatrical at the outset, never becoming dramatic, as it progresses it loses its theatricality. And not because the theatrical is contrary to the dramatic or in some sense its opposite. The theatrical sums itself up in one moment of time whereas the dramatic links into a culminating action many moments of time. When we speak of a coup de théâtre we have in mind an event which combines the theatrical with the dramatic, but the coup de théâtre simply cannot take place if some dramatic development has not prepared it. Now there is no coup de théâtre in the utterly theatrical play of Peter Weiss. In fact, the most theatrical thing about this play is its full title, which takes up about a minute's reading time. Read it: The Persecution and Assassination of Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum at Charenton under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade.
The idea that Sade might put on a play to be performed by the inmates of a lunatic asylum, and that in this play he and Marat might be the leading characters, is certainly a fascinating one suggesting a real drama. But no drama takes place in Peter Weiss's play. Sade tries to convert Marat, who does not listen to him. Why would he listen to the platitudes of sadism? Marat, totally unresponsive, declaims, in his turn, the political platitudes to which he remains committed. There is no yielding of one to the other, consequently there is no dramatic play between them. The author has said that the center of his play is an argument. Now I heard none. For in any true argument there is always a moment of wavering on the part of the one or the other. But in Marat/Sade, the Marquis is scarcely beguiling, and Marat never gives any indication of being beguiled.

Some, including Miss Sontag, have found a great theatrical interest in the fact that almost everyone on the stage is mad. I am inclined to think that this reveals in those who take such a view an ideological interest in the mad rather than an aesthetic or even psychologically normal response to madness. Anyone who has ever had a discussion with another person and noted or suspected at some point that the other was mad, must recall that with that thought or suspicion there was an immediate tendency to break off discussion. For one cannot know what a lunatic is thinking or feeling and the normal impulse is to detach oneself from any consideration of what may go on in his mind. And so it follows, however surprising this may be to some people, that madmen, though theatrical, are fundamentally undramatic and do not properly belong on the stage. A moment of madness, yes, particularly as expressed by someone whom we have seen as sane before, can have dramatic interest, and of course a sane man pretending madness is interesting. But real madmen, or persons presented as really mad, do not belong in any theater attended by people with a taste for drama.
Yet I must admit that the audience at the Martin Beck Theater does not reason as I do, and does not feel as I do. During the last moments of Marat/Sade, when the inmates of Charenton threw off all restraints and went berserk, there was an unmistakable feeling of solidarity with them on the part of the audience, so that for some moments I half expected whole groups to get up on stage and add their own versions to the outrageous "twist" Peter Brook designed. Why this fellow feeling for the mad? In answering this question, one can per- haps find some reason for the very great success of Peter Weiss's play.
Now the play is quite devoid of any intellectual meaning. Is Weiss trying to say that the content of history is sadism? This judgment might indeed make a play, and a challenging play, though I think the judgment false. In any case, Weiss has denied that this is his judgment. He asserts, "Everything irrational and absurd is foreign to me." He claims, also, to side with the platitudinous opinions uttered by Marat. Of course, none of Weiss's statements about his play need be taken seriously. In public interviews he has on the one hand described himself as a socialist, and on the other hand said that he considers socialism a failure. Such indecisiveness of judgment is hardly the sign of a superior sensitiveness to what, after judging, may remain ambiguous. Very probably, we can only learn about what is unresolvably ambiguous in politics and morals from someone whose moral and political position is clear. Certainly it would be unfair to confront Weiss's play with masterpieces like Dostoevsky's.<ref>Possibly referring to [[Fyodor Dostoevsky]] </ref>Nevertheless, the art of the Russian novelist did settle one question (there are some questions that have been settled) now being called upon by the partisans of Marat/Sade, notably its director, Mr. Peter Brook. What Dostoevsky's work proved, to those, of course, who know how to read him, is that one can choose finally—Dostoevsky chose Christ as against science and socialism—and yet acknowledge with full awareness all that is valid in what one rejects. No reader can be in doubt of Dostoevsky's judgment; he denies no reader a taste of the ambiguous. Bad or inconclusive thinking is hardly the best, or even a good way, to apprehend ambiguities.
But why the enthusiasm for Marat/Sade? Here, I think, we have to turn aside from the aesthetics of drama and look to the ideological motives of the play.

Let me go back to the frenetic response of certain members of the audience to the final scene of Marat/Sale. In that response there was a clearly articulated sympathy for madness. What sustains so peculiar, and to my mind unnatural, a sympathy?
Do people tend to think now that history is a madhouse? Or, to cite again Joyce's much-quoted phrase, a nightmare? In that case, why would they not want to wake up from it? I must also point out, that, when any strikingly leftist remark was made on the stage, the very same members of the audience who solidarized themselves with the stage's madmen again came to life with clapping and cheers. So there was a feeling in the theater for leftism plus madness, and I think this feel- ing is expressed in the play itself, whose two chief protagonists have the names Marat and Sade.
I suggest that the play appeals generally to those who have violent leftist notions and yet, like the author, think socialism a failure. In madness, one can combine such ideas.
However, the interest in madness presently expressed, and by a good many talented and intelligent people, may go far beyond the need to conciliate political leftism with despair of socialism. The frantic, the frenetic, the wild and outrageous are continually being stated as positive values nowadays, in literature, in the films, and on the stage. I recently saw an extremely clever French film in which the goal of the hero—he achieves it--is schizophrenia. The film is light, intelligent, ironical, and in that way pays tribute to French rationality, but it is an ironic tribute, for the real appeal of the film is in the figure of its protagonist finally at home in the white walls of an asylum. And if one correlates with a film of this kind, the various expressions of hysteria, irrational violence, homosexual hatred, and sheer nuttiness regularly ex- pressed by our youngest writers, one has to look more deeply into what may have caused or promoted what now amounts to a powerful trend.
I have in mind The White Negro, that wacky though powerful essay by [[Norman Mailer]], in which our genial friend and Marxist gone haywire singled out psychopaths as the bearers of future values. In this piece, he also defended the courage of some tough young kids who beat up a weak old man. Now there was a time when courage was understood very differently. Not a few French knights in feudal times thought it unmanly to engage in combat when not outnumbered. I also have in mind Mailer's recent novel, <i>[[The American Dream]]</i>, in which the protagonist, Rojack, kills his wife and then immediately afterwards buggers their maid. I must note here that the deed is a variant of one in Jean Genet's <i>Querelle de Brest</i>. In that novel the young sailor Querelle, having killed a man, feels that he ought to pay for his crime, and has himself buggered by the local pimp. Thus buggered, Querelle becomes a marked man, an enculé, and for all eternity. So Querelle does not entirely escape the mark of Cain. Except that the mark Cain had to bear on his forehead is kept hidden by Genet's hero in his ass. Now Mailer's American hero, who kills as if Cain had never existed, appears, after his crime, like an innocent abroad; he has no feeling of guilt, no need for expiation. And how was Mailer's novel understood? When Philip Rahv attacked the book insofar as its hero is without any kind of con- science, his objection was met with derision, as if it were absurd to judge a fictional character morally! As if the best of our critics had not done just that, and ever since the novel came into being.

Or take Leslie Fiedler's article, The Mutants, published in the Fall 1965 Partisan Review. I heard Mr. Fiedler give that essay as a lecture at a conference at Rutger's University and so I can supply some additional data which may throw light on Mr. Fiedler's purposes; these, from his essay as published, may be unclear. In his essay, and also in his lecture, Mr. Fiedler quoted a contemporary kid as having said to him: "Freud is a fink." Now what interested Mr. Fiedler was not whether this judgment was true or false. What interested him was that a kid should say this, and I submit that if you look at Mr. Fiedler's article you will see that he is inclined to accept the kid's judgment. Why? At Rutgers Mr. Fiedler said in so many words, though I quote from memory—but there is a transcript of the discussion which may be checked—: "I myself have become as tired of the rationalism of Freud as of Marx." Is Freud then really a fink? And why did the young man Fiedler cited say so? The answer to this is not hard to find. Norman Brown, who has had a very great impact on many of our very young men, says in his now famous book that the insistence of many conventional American males on satisfying women sexually is a form of repression stemming from Freud, and something to be rejected in the name of freedom. So even fucking, in other words, is to Mr. Brown and to the young enlightened by him a bit too classical, just too upstanding)
I want to say something further about Mr. Fiedler's essay. According to him, the taking of drugs by the young is their expression, and main expression, of dissatisfaction with a boring and spiritually flat society. I will not go so far as to say that Mr. Fiedler recommends that the young take drugs, but I suggest that no one whose children are engaged in taking drugs should call on Mr. Fiedler to dissuade them from doing so. To take drugs, according to him, is to be an adventurer, and in a society in which little adventure is possible. It is to travel inwards, something very up-to-date, like the up-to-dateness of the cosmonauts who go towards outer space. Once again, I do not want to charge Mr. Fiedler with recommending the taking of drugs, but I think his whole essay is a confession that he cannot call upon one value in whose name he could oppose it. Why?

When there is a real trend, and I think I am talking about a real trend here, one has to look for something deeper to explain it than the views of those who represent it verbally, even with cleverness. It is not enough to call names as Philip Rahv did in his review of Norman Mailer's The American Dream. Nor is it enough to argue politically with the youth, as Irving Howe did in his article on the "new left." Call Mailer foolish or a bad novelist—the last he is not—and the young will still listen to him. Call the "new left" ahistorical, as Irving Howe did in his essay, and the youny will reply—they already have replied— with violence. Philip Rahv and Irving Howe are perfectly right, of course, but I can't help remembering Hegel's remark about Rome in its decadence. The philosophers were right, Hegel said, but the people were right not to listen to them.
Once again, what can be understood to lie behind the not always clear inclination of the contemporary youth for all forms of the irrational?
More than fifteen years ago, in Alexandre Kojève's extraordinary book, An Introduction to the Reading of Hegel, a work which has influenced all French thought, including Sartre's and Merleau-Ponty's, I read the following remarkable passage, the full meaning of which I confess not to have understood at the time and which I am here translating rather freely:
Philosophy has no sense or reason for being unless it can lead to Wisdom, or at least to the Sage, that is to say, to the Man of Wisdom. On the other hand, to believe that the Sage or Man of Wisdom is possible is to necessarily accept philosophy, understood as a means of attaining Wisdom, of realizing the Sage…
Now on the question of the Sage the only fundamental disagreement is between Plato and Hegel . . . Let us see what their disagreement amounts to. One can of course, with Plato, deny that Wisdom can be realized. Then we have an either/or. Either the ideal of the Sage is never and nowhere realized, and the Philosopher is simply a madman who pretends to be what he knows it is impossible to be. Or he is not a madman; and then his ideal of Wisdom is or will be realized, and his definition of the Sage or Man of Wisdom is or will be a truth.
But to deny the existence of wisdom realized, either in God, as with Plato, or in man, as with Hegel, means, according to Kojève, to say that the philosopher is a madman—in other words, that there is no difference between the madman and the philosopher. (One might add, between the philosopher and the criminal, and between the philosopher and the dope addict.) The point of view expressed here, and which is so pertinent, in my opinion, to our contemporary problems, may be summed up as follows: either God exists and perfection on earth is not required, or God does not exist and human life can be perfected. That is, philosophy is a reasonable pursuit. But if God does not exist (contrary to Plato), and if wisdom cannot be realized (contrary to Hegel), then the madmen, the criminals and dope addicts are as reasonable as the philosophers, and even more reasonable insofar as they do not attempt to philosophize.
Now, the final deliverance of this epoch is that God does not exist and that human life cannot ever be perfected and hence that the mad- man, the criminal, and the dope addict are not inferior to the philosopher. That is why it is so difficult to argue with a young student against taking drugs, not to speak of dissuading him from doing so. Can one say to him that God exists? No. Can one say to him that society can be perfected? No. (It will not do, according to Kojève, to say that society can be somewhat improved.) Then can one say that the philosopher is better than the drug addict? No. Or better than the criminal or the madman? Again no. It is the vague recognition, I will not call it knowledge, that no one to be respected can answer these questions affirmatively which emboldens our contemporary youth and makes them so rash and so sad.
Obviously our dilemma was not new in the Russia of the 1860's. What is new, though, is the impact on a mass society of the issue of belief which Dostoevsky raised. Do we today believe in God or in man? And by "we" I mean the masses, I mean the many, the millions. For there are many Raskolnikovs among us and many more Rojacks. In fact, to appreciate fully the effect on the masses of our spiritual dilemma and the receptivity of present-day society to any and all answers, no matter how drastic, one has only to think of a contemporary Dr. Raskolnikov giving a seminar on the Double Meaning of Killing Two Pawnbrokers, or of a Dr. Rojack lecturing at an honored university on Why It Is Not Wrong to Kill One's Wife. Say that Norman Mailer is no Dostoevsky, who's going to say he is? But to say that he is not is to discriminate, and the whole question now is whether discrimination is valid. As for Mailer, his excesses in thinking were prophesied, I believe, in James Joyce's Ulysses. When Bloom, about to fall asleep, plays with variations on the name Sindbad, calling up Ninbad the Nailer, Tinbad the Tailor, and Binbad the Bailer, he suddenly becomes less lethargic, somewhat more caustic, and gets to the name we know and he didn't: our contemporary to him is Mindbad the Mailer.
But never mind Mindbad. The question is not whether Mailer is intelligent, but whether intelligence counts any more. The argument for intelligence, that is for philosophy—and by philosophy I mean the taking up of any topic, art, morals or politics, with a sincere intent to be reasonable—was, I once thought, stated forever by Aristotle. He said: if you want to philosophize, then let us philosophize; and if you don't want to philosophize, you still have to philosophize. But who in philosophy feels he has to philosophize nowadays?
In fact, our young philosophers are dulled, I believe, by their aim, which is only to be bright, that is brighter than other philosophers. And the brightest and most intolerable of all philosophers in recent times was Ludwig Wittgenstein, who said against philosophy what no philosopher ever said before him: Philosophy is Hell. For why under- take the great labor of reasoning if reason is futile, if wisdom is unrealizable, and if the philosopher is no better than the madman, the criminal, or the addict? Why? Genet is a problem to Sartre, the philosopher, who devoted a book of over 600 pages to explaining him. Sartre, as all the young know now, is no problem to Genet.
But to get back to Weiss's play. It is my assumption that the depth of the contemporary situation is there and present whenever the least conscious members of the audience at Marat/Sade respond to that work as they do and empathize with its moments of madness. I know I could argue with them about the aesthetics of drama, dispute and even refute their notions of taste, but how am I going to refute their spontaneous identification with the mad figures tumbling convulsively at the play's end across the stage?

User:Namir Riptide/sandbox

2019-04-18T01:50:21Z

Namir Riptide: Working on Essay formatting

==SO WHO'S NOT MAD?==
===Lionel Abel===

On Marat/Sade and Nihilism <ref>The Persecution and Assassination of Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum at Charenton under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade. By Peter Weiss. Directed by Peter Brook. Martin Beck Theater, New York.</ref>

It was Susan Sontag, I think, who first pointed up the extreme theatricality of Marat/Sade. Susan Sontag was right, Marat/ Sade is theatrical. Is the play dramatic, though? About this there seems to be some question in even Miss Sontag's mind. When she discussed the work in her Partisan Review article (Spring 1965) , the word "dramatic," scarcely used in her text, came up in this sentence: " . . . Marat/Sade is far from being the supreme masterpiece of contemporary dramatic literature, but it is scarcely a second-rate play." From which I infer that Miss Sontag herself has doubts as to the value of Marat/Sade as drama. My own opinion—which has the virtue at least of being settled—is that the play is indeed a "director's play," and owes most of its values of excitement and bravura to the staging and direction of Mr. Peter Brook. Whatever life Marat/Sade has on the stage comes, in my finding, from the devices of its director, not its author.
One could not say this were the play truly compelling. For certainly a play not soundly dramatic can do little more than hold its audience; the devices of a director can merely make a play bearable. To me, Marat/Sade was certainly bearable, but little more than that, except for a few moments. The first part was often tedious, and the second part a repetition of what is boring in the first. But what concerns me here is a general point, the difference between the theatrical and the dramatic.
When we find Marat on the Martin Beck stage, half of his body is enclosed in a metal bathtub, and the naked flesh of him that we do see is covered with large red spots. There he is, immobile, frail and blotched in his bath, stained by his disease. Now the effect is electric. But this effect lasts only for a moment, for Marat is going to speak. We want to hear what he says. And as we listen, we tend not to look at his red spots; but what he says is less interesting than the red spots, much less interesting humanly, much less interesting dramatically. His voice, which often rises to an orator's shout, somehow erases the strong effect the sight of his body first gave us. His is a theatrical presence, not a dramatic one.
To point up the contrast between the theatrical and the dramatic, one has only to think for a moment of Danton in Buechner's play, Danton’s Death. The real Danton, the Danton of history, was pock- marked, but Buechner in the directions for his work never insisted on representing him as such. For what interests us in the Danton of Buechner are the things Danton says, and were he presented with a pockmarked visage, the force of his lines would limit, make one forget, or even quite destroy, I think, any theatrical value his appearance with a pitted skin might have, just as the feebleness and platitudinousness of Marat's lines in Marat/Sade tend, as that play goes on, to destroy the theatrical effect our first sight of Marat, spotted and in his bathtub, gave. I suggest that the theatrical is something very different from the dramatic, and that it is finally dependent on the dramatic. A play in which the first is substituted for the second will tend to lose what- ever value, as it goes on, it had at the start. This is what happens in Marat/Sade. Highly theatrical at the outset, never becoming dramatic, as it progresses it loses its theatricality. And not because the theatrical is contrary to the dramatic or in some sense its opposite. The theatrical sums itself up in one moment of time whereas the dramatic links into a culminating action many moments of time. When we speak of a coup de théâtre we have in mind an event which combines the theatrical with the dramatic, but the coup de théâtre simply cannot take place if some dramatic development has not prepared it. Now there is no coup de théâtre in the utterly theatrical play of Peter Weiss. In fact, the most theatrical thing about this play is its full title, which takes up about a minute's reading time. Read it: The Persecution and Assassination of Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum at Charenton under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade.
The idea that Sade might put on a play to be performed by the inmates of a lunatic asylum, and that in this play he and Marat might be the leading characters, is certainly a fascinating one suggesting a real drama. But no drama takes place in Peter Weiss's play. Sade tries to convert Marat, who does not listen to him. Why would he listen to the platitudes of sadism? Marat, totally unresponsive, declaims, in his turn, the political platitudes to which he remains committed. There is no yielding of one to the other, consequently there is no dramatic play between them. The author has said that the center of his play is an argument. Now I heard none. For in any true argument there is always a moment of wavering on the part of the one or the other. But in Marat/Sade, the Marquis is scarcely beguiling, and Marat never gives any indication of being beguiled.

Some, including Miss Sontag, have found a great theatrical interest in the fact that almost everyone on the stage is mad. I am inclined to think that this reveals in those who take such a view an ideological interest in the mad rather than an aesthetic or even psychologically normal response to madness. Anyone who has ever had a discussion with another person and noted or suspected at some point that the other was mad, must recall that with that thought or suspicion there was an immediate tendency to break off discussion. For one cannot know what a lunatic is thinking or feeling and the normal impulse is to detach oneself from any consideration of what may go on in his mind. And so it follows, however surprising this may be to some people, that madmen, though theatrical, are fundamentally undramatic and do not properly belong on the stage. A moment of madness, yes, particularly as expressed by someone whom we have seen as sane before, can have dramatic interest, and of course a sane man pretending madness is interesting. But real madmen, or persons presented as really mad, do not belong in any theater attended by people with a taste for drama.
Yet I must admit that the audience at the Martin Beck Theater does not reason as I do, and does not feel as I do. During the last moments of Marat/Sade, when the inmates of Charenton threw off all restraints and went berserk, there was an unmistakable feeling of solidarity with them on the part of the audience, so that for some moments I half expected whole groups to get up on stage and add their own versions to the outrageous "twist" Peter Brook designed. Why this fellow feeling for the mad? In answering this question, one can per- haps find some reason for the very great success of Peter Weiss's play.
Now the play is quite devoid of any intellectual meaning. Is Weiss trying to say that the content of history is sadism? This judgment might indeed make a play, and a challenging play, though I think the judgment false. In any case, Weiss has denied that this is his judgment. He asserts, "Everything irrational and absurd is foreign to me." He claims, also, to side with the platitudinous opinions uttered by Marat. Of course, none of Weiss's statements about his play need be taken seriously. In public interviews he has on the one hand described himself as a socialist, and on the other hand said that he considers socialism a failure. Such indecisiveness of judgment is hardly the sign of a superior sensitiveness to what, after judging, may remain ambiguous. Very probably, we can only learn about what is unresolvably ambiguous in politics and morals from someone whose moral and political position is clear. Certainly it would be unfair to confront Weiss's play with masterpieces like Dostoevsky's.<ref>Possibly referring to [[Fyodor Dostoevsky]] </ref>Nevertheless, the art of the Russian novelist did settle one question (there are some questions that have been settled) now being called upon by the partisans of Marat/Sade, notably its director, Mr. Peter Brook. What Dostoevsky's work proved, to those, of course, who know how to read him, is that one can choose finally—Dostoevsky chose Christ as against science and socialism—and yet acknowledge with full awareness all that is valid in what one rejects. No reader can be in doubt of Dostoevsky's judgment; he denies no reader a taste of the ambiguous. Bad or inconclusive thinking is hardly the best, or even a good way, to apprehend ambiguities.
But why the enthusiasm for Marat/Sade? Here, I think, we have to turn aside from the aesthetics of drama and look to the ideological motives of the play.

Let me go back to the frenetic response of certain members of the audience to the final scene of Marat/Sale. In that response there was a clearly articulated sympathy for madness. What sustains so peculiar, and to my mind unnatural, a sympathy?
Do people tend to think now that history is a madhouse? Or, to cite again Joyce's much-quoted phrase, a nightmare? In that case, why would they not want to wake up from it? I must also point out, that, when any strikingly leftist remark was made on the stage, the very same members of the audience who solidarized themselves with the stage's madmen again came to life with clapping and cheers. So there was a feeling in the theater for leftism plus madness, and I think this feel- ing is expressed in the play itself, whose two chief protagonists have the names Marat and Sade.
I suggest that the play appeals generally to those who have violent leftist notions and yet, like the author, think socialism a failure. In madness, one can combine such ideas.
However, the interest in madness presently expressed, and by a good many talented and intelligent people, may go far beyond the need to conciliate political leftism with despair of socialism. The frantic, the frenetic, the wild and outrageous are continually being stated as positive values nowadays, in literature, in the films, and on the stage. I recently saw an extremely clever French film in which the goal of the hero—he achieves it--is schizophrenia. The film is light, intelligent, ironical, and in that way pays tribute to French rationality, but it is an ironic tribute, for the real appeal of the film is in the figure of its protagonist finally at home in the white walls of an asylum. And if one correlates with a film of this kind, the various expressions of hysteria, irrational violence, homosexual hatred, and sheer nuttiness regularly ex- pressed by our youngest writers, one has to look more deeply into what may have caused or promoted what now amounts to a powerful trend.
I have in mind The White Negro, that wacky though powerful essay by <ref>Norman Mailer</ref>, in which our genial friend and Marxist gone haywire singled out psychopaths as the bearers of future values. In this piece, he also defended the courage of some tough young kids who beat up a weak old man. Now there was a time when courage was understood very differently. Not a few French knights in feudal times thought it unmanly to engage in combat when not outnumbered. I also have in mind Mailer's recent novel, <ref>The American Dream</ref>, in which the protagonist, Rojack, kills his wife and then immediately afterwards buggers their maid. I must note here that the deed is a variant of one in Jean Genet's Querelle de Brest. In that novel the young sailor Querelle, having killed a man, feels that he ought to pay for his crime, and has himself buggered by the local pimp. Thus buggered, Querelle becomes a marked man, an enculé, and for all eternity. So Querelle does not entirely escape the mark of Cain. Except that the mark Cain had to bear on his forehead is kept hidden by Genet's hero in his ass. Now Mailer's American hero, who kills as if Cain had never existed, appears, after his crime, like an innocent abroad; he has no feeling of guilt, no need for expiation. And how was Mailer's novel understood? When Philip Rahv attacked the book insofar as its hero is without any kind of con- science, his objection was met with derision, as if it were absurd to judge a fictional character morally! As if the best of our critics had not done just that, and ever since the novel came into being.

Or take Leslie Fiedler's article, The Mutants, published in the Fall 1965 Partisan Review. I heard Mr. Fiedler give that essay as a lecture at a conference at Rutger's University and so I can supply some additional data which may throw light on Mr. Fiedler's purposes; these, from his essay as published, may be unclear. In his essay, and also in his lecture, Mr. Fiedler quoted a contemporary kid as having said to him: "Freud is a fink." Now what interested Mr. Fiedler was not whether this judgment was true or false. What interested him was that a kid should say this, and I submit that if you look at Mr. Fiedler's article you will see that he is inclined to accept the kid's judgment. Why? At Rutgers Mr. Fiedler said in so many words, though I quote from memory—but there is a transcript of the discussion which may be checked—: "I myself have become as tired of the rationalism of Freud as of Marx." Is Freud then really a fink? And why did the young man Fiedler cited say so? The answer to this is not hard to find. Norman Brown, who has had a very great impact on many of our very young men, says in his now famous book that the insistence of many conventional American males on satisfying women sexually is a form of repression stemming from Freud, and something to be rejected in the name of freedom. So even fucking, in other words, is to Mr. Brown and to the young enlightened by him a bit too classical, just too upstanding)
I want to say something further about Mr. Fiedler's essay. Accord- ing to him, the taking of drugs by the young is their expression, and main expression, of dissatisfaction with a boring and spiritually flat society. I will not go so far as to say that Mr. Fiedler recommends that the young take drugs, but I suggest that no one whose children are engaged in taking drugs should call on Mr. Fiedler to dissuade them from doing so. To take drugs, according to him, is to be an ad- venturer, and in a society in which little adventure is possible. It is to travel inwards, something very up-to-date, like the up-to-dateness of the cosmonauts who go towards outer space. Once again, I do not want to charge Mr. Fiedler with recommending the taking of drugs, but I think his whole essay is a confession that he cannot call upon one value in whose name he could oppose it. Why?

When there is a real trend, and I think I am talking about a real trend here, one has to look for something deeper to explain it than the views of those who represent it verbally, even with cleverness. It is not enough to call names as Philip Rahv did in his review of Norman Mailer's The American Dream. Nor is it enough to argue politically with the youth, as Irving Howe did in his article on the "new left." Call Mailer foolish or a bad novelist—the last he is not—and the young will still listen to him. Call the "new left" ahistorical, as Irving Howe did in his essay, and the youny will reply—they already have replied— with violence. Philip Rahv and Irving Howe are perfectly right, of course, but I can't help remembering Hegel's remark about Rome in its decadence. The philosophers were right, Hegel said, but the people were right not to listen to them.
Once again, what can be understood to lie behind the not always clear inclination of the contemporary youth for all forms of the irrational?
More than fifteen years ago, in Alexandre Kojève's extraordinary book, An Introduction to the Reading of Hegel, a work which has influenced all French thought, including Sartre's and Merleau-Ponty's, I read the following remarkable passage, the full meaning of which I confess not to have understood at the time and which I am here translating rather freely:
Philosophy has no sense or reason for being unless it can lead to Wisdom, or at least to the Sage, that is to say, to the Man of Wisdom. On the other hand, to believe that the Sage or Man of Wisdom is possible is to necessarily accept philosophy, understood as a means of attaining Wisdom, of realizing the Sage…
Now on the question of the Sage the only fundamental disagreement is between Plato and Hegel . . . Let us see what their disagreement amounts to. One can of course, with Plato, deny that Wisdom can be realized. Then we have an either/or. Either the ideal of the Sage is never and nowhere realized, and the Philosopher is simply a madman who pretends to be what he knows it is impossible to be. Or he is not a madman; and then his ideal of Wisdom is or will be realized, and his definition of the Sage or Man of Wisdom is or will be a truth.
But to deny the existence of wisdom realized, either in God, as with Plato, or in man, as with Hegel, means, according to Kojève, to say that the philosopher is a madman—in other words, that there is no difference between the madman and the philosopher. (One might add, between the philosopher and the criminal, and between the philosopher and the dope addict.) The point of view expressed here, and which is so pertinent, in my opinion, to our contemporary problems, may be summed up as follows: either God exists and perfection on earth is not required, or God does not exist and human life can be perfected. That is, philosophy is a reasonable pursuit. But if God does not exist (contrary to Plato), and if wisdom cannot be realized (contrary to Hegel), then the madmen, the criminals and dope addicts are as reasonable as the philosophers, and even more reasonable insofar as they do not attempt to philosophize.
Now, the final deliverance of this epoch is that God does not exist and that human life cannot ever be perfected and hence that the mad- man, the criminal, and the dope addict are not inferior to the philosopher. That is why it is so difficult to argue with a young student against taking drugs, not to speak of dissuading him from doing so. Can one say to him that God exists? No. Can one say to him that society can be perfected? No. (It will not do, according to Kojève, to say that society can be somewhat improved.) Then can one say that the philosopher is better than the drug addict? No. Or better than the criminal or the madman? Again no. It is the vague recognition, I will not call it knowledge, that no one to be respected can answer these questions affirmatively which emboldens our contemporary youth and makes them so rash and so sad.
Obviously our dilemma was not new in the Russia of the 1860's. What is new, though, is the impact on a mass society of the issue of belief which Dostoevsky raised. Do we today believe in God or in man? And by "we" I mean the masses, I mean the many, the millions. For there are many Raskolnikovs among us and many more Rojacks. In fact, to appreciate fully the effect on the masses of our spiritual dilemma and the receptivity of present-day society to any and all answers, no matter how drastic, one has only to think of a contemporary Dr. Raskolnikov giving a seminar on the Double Meaning of Killing Two Pawnbrokers, or of a Dr. Rojack lecturing at an honored university on Why It Is Not Wrong to Kill One's Wife. Say that Norman Mailer is no Dostoevsky, who's going to say he is? But to say that he is not is to discriminate, and the whole question now is whether discrimination is valid. As for Mailer, his excesses in thinking were prophesied, I believe, in James Joyce's Ulysses. When Bloom, about to fall asleep, plays with variations on the name Sindbad, calling up Ninbad the Nailer, Tinbad the Tailor, and Binbad the Bailer, he suddenly becomes less lethargic, somewhat more caustic, and gets to the name we know and he didn't: our contemporary to him is Mindbad the Mailer.
But never mind Mindbad. The question is not whether Mailer is intelligent, but whether intelligence counts any more. The argument for intelligence, that is for philosophy—and by philosophy I mean the taking up of any topic, art, morals or politics, with a sincere intent to be reasonable—was, I once thought, stated forever by Aristotle. He said: if you want to philosophize, then let us philosophize; and if you don't want to philosophize, you still have to philosophize. But who in philosophy feels he has to philosophize nowadays?
In fact, our young philosophers are dulled, I believe, by their aim, which is only to be bright, that is brighter than other philosophers. And the brightest and most intolerable of all philosophers in recent times was Ludwig Wittgenstein, who said against philosophy what no philosopher ever said before him: Philosophy is Hell. For why under- take the great labor of reasoning if reason is futile, if wisdom is unrealizable, and if the philosopher is no better than the madman, the criminal, or the addict? Why? Genet is a problem to Sartre, the philosopher, who devoted a book of over 600 pages to explaining him. Sartre, as all the young know now, is no problem to Genet.
But to get back to Weiss's play. It is my assumption that the depth of the contemporary situation is there and present whenever the least conscious members of the audience at Marat/Sade respond to that work as they do and empathize with its moments of madness. I know I could argue with them about the aesthetics of drama, dispute and even refute their notions of taste, but how am I going to refute their spontaneous identification with the mad figures tumbling convulsively at the play's end across the stage?

User:Namir Riptide/sandbox 2

2019-04-07T23:47:36Z

Namir Riptide: Created page with "=Essay="

=Essay=

Talk:Norris Church Mailer

2019-04-07T23:45:44Z

Namir Riptide: Reply/apprised changes, replied

{{reply to|Dillbug|Dmcgonagill|JVbird|JenniferMGA|Mango Masala|Namir Riptide|Sherita Sims-Jones|Waebo}} OK, our job here is to write a concise 200-word bio of NCM. Since we're all experts, this should be pretty straightforward. All references in the shared drive should be used, which might present a bit more of a challenge. This is the big writing assignment for this week, and I see no one has begun, so consider this the 🔥. 😁 —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 17:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

:{{reply to|Grlucas}} Thanks for the fire! It's on my to-do list for today, after I finish my last set of papers. only 12 more to go. Then a 200 word bio. [[User:JVbird|JVbird]] ([[User talk:JVbird|talk]]) 17:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Grlucas}} I worked on the assignment some yesterday and will work on again tomorrow. So much to do, so little time!--[[User:Dillbug|Dillbug]] ([[User talk:Dillbug|talk]]) 01:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Grlucas}} Thanks for the update. I have been working on the 12 letters for the project mailer, but I do have some information to add for the bio. [[User:Waebo|Waebo]] ([[User talk:Waebo|talk]]) 01:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Grlucas}} {{reply to|JVbird}} {{reply to|Waebo}} Okay, I think I have gotten the bio down to 200 words or less. Please check it out and tell me your thoughts. If we could all work on adding all the citations into the bio and any links you think we need we can get this task completed and not catch the wrath of Grlucas!--[[User:Dillbug|Dillbug]] ([[User talk:Dillbug|talk]]) 02:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|Grlucas}} {{reply to|JVbird}} {{reply to|Waebo}} {{reply to|Dillbug}} {{reply to|Dmcgonagill}} {{reply to|JenniferMGA}} {{reply to|Namir Riptide}} {{reply to|Sherita Sims-Jones}}Looking good, everyone! I've made some edits and added italics. I think we're about 28 words too long; I'm going to look through the NCM articles in the Google Drive to ensure we've used everything and will also work on the citations.[[User:Mango Masala|Mango Masala]] ([[User talk:Mango Masala|talk]]) 18:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

:::: {{reply to|Mango Masala}} I'll also go in one more time and see if I can cut some as well, Mariam. The citations are definitely missing. I'll help with that right away as well. [[User:JVbird|JVbird]] ([[User talk:JVbird|talk]]) 19:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

::::: {{reply to|Waebo}} {{reply to|Dillbug}} {{reply to|Dmcgonagill}} {{reply to|JenniferMGA}} {{reply to|Namir Riptide}} {{reply to|Sherita Sims-Jones}} Also, the Tulsa World source has a bit of a different take on a couple of things. The Executioner's Song was a TV movie, whereas the bio may be slightly off if we call it a movie? I'm also rethinking my description of the memoir as chronicling their marriage. That may be too specific. It's not just about their marriage, right? We may have to adjust the description of Art to paintings in her one-woman shows. What do you all think? Might need to just double check facts here a bit... [[User:JVbird|JVbird]] ([[User talk:JVbird|talk]]) 19:47, April 6 2019 (UTC)
::::: {{reply to|Dillbug|JVbird|JenniferMGA|Mango Masala|Namir Riptide|Sherita Sims-Jones|Waebo}} Just got done with ALL DAY baseball & yardwork, here to join the party! ([[User:Dmcgonagill|Dmcgonagill]] ([[User talk:Dmcgonagill|talk]]) 23:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC))

:::::{{reply to|Dmcgonagill}} sounds like a fun day, Dana. Maybe you can help me with what is up with my wiki links. When I do the brackets for words like Norman Mailer, they do not create an auto link where you hover over the word and get a thumbnail to a Wiki page. I remember something Lucas told me, that I need to put a w inside the bracket, as in [[w Norman Mailer]] to do that in Wikipedia, but I think I have the code wrong there. I'm going to look for the code again, then wikify it by giving links to Wilhelmina modeling agency, the school, the city, and those movies and tv shows, along with NM himself. Should anything else be wikified? [[User:JVbird|JVbird]] ([[User talk:JVbird|talk]]) 23:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::: {{reply to|Dmcgonagill}} The code is this, right: [[w:Norman Mailer|Norman Mailer]] Right? [[User:JVbird|JVbird]] ([[User talk:JVbird|talk]]) 23:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::::{{reply to| JVbird| Dmcgonagill}} Mailer has his own page here, so any links to him should just be <code><nowiki>[[Norman Mailer]]</nowiki></code>. If you're just linking his last name, you can use this code, too: <code><nowiki>{{NM}}</nowiki></code>. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 12:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

::::::::{{reply to| Grlucas|Dmcgonagill}} Thanks, Dr. Lucas! [[User:JVbird|JVbird]] ([[User talk:JVbird|talk]]) 15:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::::{{reply to|Dmcgongill}{{reply to|JVbird}} When you put the 'w:' inside the bracket, make sure you use the double colons as well.--[[User:Dillbug|Dillbug]] ([[User talk:Dillbug|talk]]) 23:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
::::::{{reply to|JVbird}} I just wrote you a real long response and must have forget to save!!! Ok, you use <nowiki>[[w:<wikipedia title>|<desired text output to page>]]</nowiki> for wiki links outside of our project mailer & <nowiki>[[<project mailer heading>|<desired text output to page>]]</nowiki> for wiki links inside of our project mailer...is that clear?([[User:Dmcgonagill|Dmcgonagill]] ([[User talk:Dmcgonagill|talk]]) 23:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC))
::::::{{reply to|Dmcgonagill}} Roger that! Merci. Now to get those dang references going. [[User:JVbird|JVbird]] ([[User talk:JVbird|talk]]) 23:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::::{{reply to|Dmcgonagill}} {{reply to|JVbird}} We are citing the works found in the shared Google Drive under the Works Cited section, correct? I'm attempting to cite the official fellowship document...do you think I should cite it as a press release? thanks! [[User:Mango Masala|Mango Masala]] ([[User talk:Mango Masala|talk]]) 00:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

::::::::{{reply to|Mango Masala|Dmcgonagill}} That's my understanding, that all the sources in shared Google Drive should be listed there, as well as the additional source that, I believe, Rian located for the information on the Creative Writing fellowship. Then the in text citations have to be inserted as well. I tried, actually, to just pull them over from the original NCM page we worked on, but that did not work at all. Trying again [[User:JVbird|JVbird]] ([[User talk:JVbird|talk]]) 24:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
::::::::{{reply to|Mango Masala|JVbird}} I made citations for every document except that one that yes I think is a press release. Somebody please check my work though, I am a novice but here is a link that helps with the formation [[w:Template:Cite press release|The table on the right links you to all of the most common ones anyway]]([[User:Dmcgonagill|Dmcgonagill]] ([[User talk:Dmcgonagill|talk]]) 00:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC))
:::::::::{{reply to|Dmcgonagill|JVbird}} Thank you both for the clarification. I'm just seeing your works cited Dana and will check, too. I did try the press release template, but it did not look correct, so I deleted and will try again. [[User:Mango Masala|Mango Masala]] ([[User talk:Mango Masala|talk]]) 01:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::{{reply to |JVbird|Mango Masala}} I just added some headings too. All feel free to alter, I was just throwing something out there because that seems to be the way with biography pages. I'm out for today. I'll check back in the morning! Happy editing, as wikiedu likes to end with! [[File:718smiley.svg|20px]] ([[User:Dmcgonagill|Dmcgonagill]] ([[User talk:Dmcgonagill|talk]]) 01:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC))
::::::::::{{reply to |Dmcgonagill}} Thanks for headings - it's taking shape. I think I've added the press release properly...will look again with fresh eyes tomorrow morn. [[User:Mango Masala|Mango Masala]] ([[User talk:Mango Masala|talk]]) 02:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
{{reply to|JVbird|Mango Masala}} I added a citation for each detail except '''She was the mother of two children and stepmother of Norman Mailer's five children.''' Can either of you find which source could support that and add a citation? It is interesting combing closer through the support documents that a couple of them give opposing facts to support opposing ideas about the Norman Norris marriage and relationship. Future contributors, could surely add supporting evidence on that. Anyhow, I'm done contributing to this. For a first legit group effort, I think this looks pretty good. Thanks y'all.([[User:Dmcgonagill|Dmcgonagill]] ([[User talk:Dmcgonagill|talk]]) 15:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC))
::::::::::{{reply to |Dmcgonagill|Mango Masala}} I sure will, Dana. I even thought of taking that out entirely, the reference to children, but it seemed to me a salient fact, although whether it belongs where I placed it, I am not ultimately sure. ([[User:JVbird|JVbird]] ([[User talk:JVbird|talk]]) 15:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::{{reply to |Dmcgonagill|JVbird}} Well done and thank you, guys! I will look for sources and add citation if found. Josef, I also thought about omitting info about children...I suppose whether we find citations or not will determine its fate.[[User:Mango Masala|Mango Masala]] ([[User talk:Mango Masala|talk]]) 15:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{reply to |Mango Masala|Dmcgonagill}} I found the source, Berger, added that citation, and then adjusted a couple of the words in the headers. That last one seemed more appropriate for the word Legacy, Death and Legacy...See what you think. [[User:JVbird|JVbird]] ([[User talk:JVbird|talk]]) 15:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{reply to| JVbird|}} Smashing, Josef! I like Legacy and Death, thanks. And, thank you {{reply to|Dillbug}} for trimming. I also see the red source indicating a non-existent page...I'm not certain what to look for in the code...did you use a template? [[User:Mango Masala|Mango Masala]] ([[User talk:Mango Masala|talk]]) 20:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::::::{{reply to|Mango Masala|Grlucas}} Let's ask Dr. Lucas, then, since we're all stumped. Any suggestions for correcting the problem we are seeing with the non existent page for this source on the NCM bio: Bragg, M. A. (November 23, 2010). "Provincetown Arts 'hero' Mailer is missed". Newsgroup: CapeCodOnline.com. Retrieved 2010-11-26. Thanks! [[User:JVbird|JVbird]] ([[User talk:JVbird|talk]]) 20:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

{{reply to|Dillbug|Dmcgonagill|JVbird|JenniferMGA|Mango Masala|Namir Riptide|Sherita Sims-Jones|Waebo}} I reduced the total to exactly 200 words without taking anything relevant out. Please everyone review and let me know if you agree. Note to Joseph: I like Death and Legacy very much! --[[User:Dillbug|Dillbug]] ([[User talk:Dillbug|talk]]) 17:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

:{{reply to|Dillbug|Dmcgonagill|JenniferMGA|Mango Masala|Namir Riptide|Sherita Sims-Jones|Waebo}} Looks great, Sandy! Any idea what is up with that one red source in the References list? When I hover over it, I get a note that the source does not exist. I'll check to see if I can figure out the citation but I'm the last one to be able to "see" errors in the codes UGH --[[User:JVbird|JVbird]] ([[User talk:JVbird|talk]]) 17:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

:{{reply to |JVbird}} That red is due to the website being out of service I believe, but I don't know what else to do because that was the link provided by the source.([[User:Dmcgonagill|Dmcgonagill]] ([[User talk:Dmcgonagill|talk]]) 22:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC))
:::{{reply to|JVbird|Dmcgonagill}} It didn’t recognize “newsgroup. Chnaged it to work and corrected the site to the current one fixed the error. [[User:Namir Riptide|Namir Riptide]] ([[User talk:Namir Riptide|talk]]) 23:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Dillbug|Dmcgonagill|JVbird|JenniferMGA|Mango Masala|Namir Riptide|Waebo}} Fabulous job. This bio if very specific, concise, and to the point. Please let me know if I need to do or add anything else. -[[User:ssimsjones|ssimsjones]] ([[User talk:ssimsjones|talk]]) 16:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Dillbug|Dmcgonagill|JVbird|JenniferMGA|Mango Masala |Namir Riptide}} This Bio is looking really good. Is there anything else we could add or something that someone needs help with?[[User:Waebo|Waebo]] ([[User talk:Waebo|talk]]) 23:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|Dillbug|Weabo}} I am not sure what needs to be changed, but looking it over with critical eyes, maybe prints with red pens, maybe the most help. I know I changed some some wording. [[User:Namir Riptide|Namir Riptide]] ([[User talk:Namir Riptide|talk]]) 23:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Norris Church Mailer

2019-04-07T23:40:16Z

Namir Riptide: Fixed random error on access date

[[File: Norris Church Mailer.jpeg|thumb|Photo courtesy of the Norris Church Mailer Estate.]]
Norris Church Mailer (born Barbara Jean Davis, January 31, 1949, in Arkansas – died November 21, 2010, in [[w:Brooklyn Heights|Brooklyn Heights, New York City]]){{sfn|Norris Church Mailer|2014}} was an American artist, actress, model, and author of several books. Her publications include the memoir, ''A Ticket to the Circus'', and the novels ''Cheap Diamonds'' and ''Windchill Summer''.{{sfn|Wire Report|2010}}

=Early Life & Career=
Originally from [[w:Atkins, Arkansas|Atkins, Arkansas]], Norris had several successful careers.{{sfn|Mailer|1989}} After graduating from [[w:Arkansas Tech University|Arkansas Polytechnic College]], Norris became an art teacher and, later, a successful model for [[w:Wilhelmina Models|Wilhelmina modeling agency]].{{sfn|Klemesrud|1979}} Norris held several successful one-woman art exhibits, while acting in: [[w:Ragtime (film)|''Ragtime'']] (1981), [[w:The Executioner's Song (film)|''The Executioner's Song'']] (1982), and the television drama, [[w:All My Children|''All My Children'']]{{sfn|Mansfield|2008}}. Norris was a member of the [[w:Actors Studio|Actors Studio]].{{sfn|Wire Reports|2010}}

=Life with Normal Mailer=
Norris's near 33-year marriage to her second husband, [[Norman Mailer|Norman Mailer]],{{sfn|Italie|2010}} is frequently the focus of reviews about her life. Norris described Mailer as "the [[w:Henry Higgins|Henry Higgins]] to my [[w:Eliza Doolittle|Eliza Doolittle]]"{{sfn|Berger|2019|p=B11}}, often seeking his advice on novel drafts and defending him against critics.{{sfn|Klemesrud|1979}} ''A Ticket to the Circus'' chronicles her life.{{sfn|Bragg|2010}} Norris was mother and stepmother to nine children.{{sfn|Berger|2019}}

=Legacy & Death=
In 2004, [[w:Wilkes University|Wilkes University]] established the Norris Mailer Church Fellowship in Creative Writing in her honor.{{sfn|The Norris Church Mailer Fellowship in Creative Writing|n.d.}} Norris died in 2010 of complications from [[w:Gastrointestinal cancer|gastrointestinal cancer]].{{sfn|Berger|2019}}

* [[:Category: Written by Norris Church Mailer|Contributions]]
* [[Tributes to Norris Church Mailer]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Mailer, Norris Church}}
[[Category:Contributors]]

==Citations==
{{Reflist|20em}}

==Works Cited==

{{Refbegin|40em}}
* {{cite news |last=Berger |first=Joseph |date=November 22, 2010 |title=Norris Church Mailer, Artist and Ally, Dies at 61 |work=New York Times |location=New York }}
* {{cite newsgroup |title=Provincetown Arts 'hero' Mailer is missed |author=Bragg, M. A. |date=November 23, 2010 |work=CapeCodOnline.com|message-id=|url=http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20101123/NEWS/11230311 |access-date=2010-11-26}}
* {{cite journal |last=Harris |first=Ellen |date=December 2010 |title=The Norman Conquest, or The Last Wife of Norman Mailer Speaks |journal=Belle Lettres |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=22-23 }}
* {{cite news |last=Italie |first=Hillel |date=November 22, 2010 |title=Norris Mailer; her memoir tells of life as author's 6th wife |work=Boston Globe |location=New York }}
* {{cite news |last=Klemesrud |first=Judy |date=April 22, 1979 |title=Life With Norman Mailer: So far it has been good to Norris Church |work=St. Louis Post-Dispatch |location= }}
* {{cite news |last=Klemesrud |first=Judy |date=April 22, 1979 |title=Mailer's Latest Love Story |work=St. Louis Post-Dispatch |location=New York }}
* {{cite interview |last=Mailer |first=Norris |subject-link=Norris Church Mailer |interviewer=Frazier Moore |title=The Very Versatile, Mrs. Mailer |publisher= |location= |date=April 1989 |work= }}
* {{cite news |last=Mansfield |first=Stephanie |date=January 26, 1986 |title=Norris Mailer, Out of Arkansas The Author's Sixth Wife, Her Art and Her Roots |work=Washington Post |location= }}
* {{cite press release |author=Wilks University|title= The Norris Church Mailer Fellowship in Creative Writing|url=https://www.wilkes.edu/academics/graduate-programs/masters-programs/creative-writing-ma-mfa/admissions-requirements/financial-aid.aspx |date=2004 |access-date=2019-04-07}}
* {{cite news |author=Wire Reports|title=Norris Mailer, 6th wife of Norman Mailer, dies |work=Tulsa World |location= |date=2010-11-26 }}

Norris Church Mailer

2019-04-07T23:38:11Z

Namir Riptide: Fixed broken newsgroup, and bad link to article

[[File: Norris Church Mailer.jpeg|thumb|Photo courtesy of the Norris Church Mailer Estate.]]
Norris Church Mailer (born Barbara Jean Davis, January 31, 1949, in Arkansas – died November 21, 2010, in [[w:Brooklyn Heights|Brooklyn Heights, New York City]]){{sfn|Norris Church Mailer|2014}} was an American artist, actress, model, and author of several books. Her publications include the memoir, ''A Ticket to the Circus'', and the novels ''Cheap Diamonds'' and ''Windchill Summer''.{{sfn|Wire Report|2010}}

=Early Life & Career=
Originally from [[w:Atkins, Arkansas|Atkins, Arkansas]], Norris had several successful careers.{{sfn|Mailer|1989}} After graduating from [[w:Arkansas Tech University|Arkansas Polytechnic College]], Norris became an art teacher and, later, a successful model for [[w:Wilhelmina Models|Wilhelmina modeling agency]].{{sfn|Klemesrud|1979}} Norris held several successful one-woman art exhibits, while acting in: [[w:Ragtime (film)|''Ragtime'']] (1981), [[w:The Executioner's Song (film)|''The Executioner's Song'']] (1982), and the television drama, [[w:All My Children|''All My Children'']]{{sfn|Mansfield|2008}}. Norris was a member of the [[w:Actors Studio|Actors Studio]].{{sfn|Wire Reports|2010}}

=Life with Normal Mailer=
Norris's near 33-year marriage to her second husband, [[Norman Mailer|Norman Mailer]],{{sfn|Italie|2010}} is frequently the focus of reviews about her life. Norris described Mailer as "the [[w:Henry Higgins|Henry Higgins]] to my [[w:Eliza Doolittle|Eliza Doolittle]]"{{sfn|Berger|2019|p=B11}}, often seeking his advice on novel drafts and defending him against critics.{{sfn|Klemesrud|1979}} ''A Ticket to the Circus'' chronicles her life.{{sfn|Bragg|2010}} Norris was mother and stepmother to nine children.{{sfn|Berger|2019}}

=Legacy & Death=
In 2004, [[w:Wilkes University|Wilkes University]] established the Norris Mailer Church Fellowship in Creative Writing in her honor.{{sfn|The Norris Church Mailer Fellowship in Creative Writing|n.d.}} Norris died in 2010 of complications from [[w:Gastrointestinal cancer|gastrointestinal cancer]].{{sfn|Berger|2019}}

* [[:Category: Written by Norris Church Mailer|Contributions]]
* [[Tributes to Norris Church Mailer]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Mailer, Norris Church}}
[[Category:Contributors]]

==Citations==
{{Reflist|20em}}

==Works Cited==

{{Refbegin|40em}}
* {{cite news |last=Berger |first=Joseph |date=November 22, 2010 |title=Norris Church Mailer, Artist and Ally, Dies at 61 |work=New York Times |location=New York }}
* {{cite newsgroup |title=Provincetown Arts 'hero' Mailer is missed |author=Bragg, M. A. |date=November 23, 2010 |work=CapeCodOnline.com|message-id=|url=http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20101123/NEWS/11230311 |access-date=2019-4-7}}
* {{cite journal |last=Harris |first=Ellen |date=December 2010 |title=The Norman Conquest, or The Last Wife of Norman Mailer Speaks |journal=Belle Lettres |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=22-23 }}
* {{cite news |last=Italie |first=Hillel |date=November 22, 2010 |title=Norris Mailer; her memoir tells of life as author's 6th wife |work=Boston Globe |location=New York }}
* {{cite news |last=Klemesrud |first=Judy |date=April 22, 1979 |title=Life With Norman Mailer: So far it has been good to Norris Church |work=St. Louis Post-Dispatch |location= }}
* {{cite news |last=Klemesrud |first=Judy |date=April 22, 1979 |title=Mailer's Latest Love Story |work=St. Louis Post-Dispatch |location=New York }}
* {{cite interview |last=Mailer |first=Norris |subject-link=Norris Church Mailer |interviewer=Frazier Moore |title=The Very Versatile, Mrs. Mailer |publisher= |location= |date=April 1989 |work= }}
* {{cite news |last=Mansfield |first=Stephanie |date=January 26, 1986 |title=Norris Mailer, Out of Arkansas The Author's Sixth Wife, Her Art and Her Roots |work=Washington Post |location= }}
* {{cite press release |author=Wilks University|title= The Norris Church Mailer Fellowship in Creative Writing|url=https://www.wilkes.edu/academics/graduate-programs/masters-programs/creative-writing-ma-mfa/admissions-requirements/financial-aid.aspx |date=2004 |access-date=2019-04-07}}
* {{cite news |author=Wire Reports|title=Norris Mailer, 6th wife of Norman Mailer, dies |work=Tulsa World |location= |date=2010-11-26 }}

Norris Church Mailer

2019-04-07T23:22:43Z

Namir Riptide: Possbile conciseness edit with Early life, added Wilkes University to Works Cited as Author of Scholarship.

[[File: Norris Church Mailer.jpeg|thumb|Photo courtesy of the Norris Church Mailer Estate.]]
Norris Church Mailer (born Barbara Jean Davis, January 31, 1949, in Arkansas – died November 21, 2010, in [[w:Brooklyn Heights|Brooklyn Heights, New York City]]){{sfn|Norris Church Mailer|2014}} was an American artist, actress, model, and author of several books. Her publications include the memoir, ''A Ticket to the Circus'', and the novels ''Cheap Diamonds'' and ''Windchill Summer''.{{sfn|Wire Report|2010}}

=Early Life & Career=
Originally from [[w:Atkins, Arkansas|Atkins, Arkansas]], Norris had several successful careers.{{sfn|Mailer|1989}} After graduating from [[w:Arkansas Tech University|Arkansas Polytechnic College]], Norris became an art teacher and, later, a successful model for [[w:Wilhelmina Models|Wilhelmina modeling agency]].{{sfn|Klemesrud|1979}} Norris held several successful one-woman art exhibits, while acting in: [[w:Ragtime (film)|''Ragtime'']] (1981), [[w:The Executioner's Song (film)|''The Executioner's Song'']] (1982), and the television drama, [[w:All My Children|''All My Children'']]{{sfn|Mansfield|2008}}. Norris was a member of the [[w:Actors Studio|Actors Studio]].{{sfn|Wire Reports|2010}}

=Life with Normal Mailer=
Norris's near 33-year marriage to her second husband, [[Norman Mailer|Norman Mailer]],{{sfn|Italie|2010}} is frequently the focus of reviews about her life. Norris described Mailer as "the [[w:Henry Higgins|Henry Higgins]] to my [[w:Eliza Doolittle|Eliza Doolittle]]"{{sfn|Berger|2019|p=B11}}, often seeking his advice on novel drafts and defending him against critics.{{sfn|Klemesrud|1979}} ''A Ticket to the Circus'' chronicles her life.{{sfn|Bragg|2010}} Norris was mother and stepmother to nine children.{{sfn|Berger|2019}}

=Legacy & Death=
In 2004, [[w:Wilkes University|Wilkes University]] established the Norris Mailer Church Fellowship in Creative Writing in her honor.{{sfn|The Norris Church Mailer Fellowship in Creative Writing|n.d.}} Norris died in 2010 of complications from [[w:Gastrointestinal cancer|gastrointestinal cancer]].{{sfn|Berger|2019}}

* [[:Category: Written by Norris Church Mailer|Contributions]]
* [[Tributes to Norris Church Mailer]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Mailer, Norris Church}}
[[Category:Contributors]]

==Citations==
{{Reflist|20em}}

==Works Cited==

{{Refbegin|40em}}
* {{cite news |last=Berger |first=Joseph |date=November 22, 2010 |title=Norris Church Mailer, Artist and Ally, Dies at 61 |work=New York Times |location=New York }}
* {{cite newsgroup |title=Provincetown Arts 'hero' Mailer is missed |author=Bragg, M. A. |date=November 23, 2010 |newsgroup=CapeCodOnline.com|message-id=|url=http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101123/NEWS/11230311/ |access-date=2010-11-26}}
* {{cite journal |last=Harris |first=Ellen |date=December 2010 |title=The Norman Conquest, or The Last Wife of Norman Mailer Speaks |journal=Belle Lettres |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=22-23 }}
* {{cite news |last=Italie |first=Hillel |date=November 22, 2010 |title=Norris Mailer; her memoir tells of life as author's 6th wife |work=Boston Globe |location=New York }}
* {{cite news |last=Klemesrud |first=Judy |date=April 22, 1979 |title=Life With Norman Mailer: So far it has been good to Norris Church |work=St. Louis Post-Dispatch |location= }}
* {{cite news |last=Klemesrud |first=Judy |date=April 22, 1979 |title=Mailer's Latest Love Story |work=St. Louis Post-Dispatch |location=New York }}
* {{cite interview |last=Mailer |first=Norris |subject-link=Norris Church Mailer |interviewer=Frazier Moore |title=The Very Versatile, Mrs. Mailer |publisher= |location= |date=April 1989 |work= }}
* {{cite news |last=Mansfield |first=Stephanie |date=January 26, 1986 |title=Norris Mailer, Out of Arkansas The Author's Sixth Wife, Her Art and Her Roots |work=Washington Post |location= }}
* {{cite press release |author=Wilks University|title= The Norris Church Mailer Fellowship in Creative Writing|url=https://www.wilkes.edu/academics/graduate-programs/masters-programs/creative-writing-ma-mfa/admissions-requirements/financial-aid.aspx |date=2004 |access-date=2019-04-07}}
* {{cite news |author=Wire Reports|title=Norris Mailer, 6th wife of Norman Mailer, dies |work=Tulsa World |location= |date=2010-11-26 }}

User talk:Namir Riptide

2019-04-07T16:56:03Z

Namir Riptide: Edit

== What? ==

OK, I have to ask. What are “positive money arithmatic” (do you mean arithmetic?) and “creative situation solving” (you solve situations? like escape rooms?)? Just curious. 😁 —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]])
:{{reply to|Grlucas}} Building off the joke: reading, writing, and arithmatic. I say Positive money arithmatic meaning I enjoy actually having and making money and being able to cover all my bills and live. Solve Fictional situations: D&D, WW, NWoD, PF, Rifts, Fuzion, etc. XD Logic puzzles interest me, but I already have too many interests and not enough time. XD [[User:Namir Riptide|Namir Riptide]] ([[User talk:Namir Riptide|talk]]) 16:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Namir Riptide

2019-04-07T16:53:51Z

Namir Riptide: /* What? */ Replied

== What? ==

OK, I have to ask. What are “positive money arithmatic” (do you mean arithmetic?) and “creative situation solving” (you solve situations? like escape rooms?)? Just curious. 😁 —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]])
:{{reply to|Grlucas}} Building off the joke: reading, writing, and arithmatic. I say Positive money arithmatic meaning I enjoy actually have and make money, not credit, and being able to cover all my bills and live. Solve Fictional situations: D&D, WW, NWoD, PF, Rifts, Fuzion, etc. XD Logic puzzles interest me, but I already have too many interests and not enough time. XD [[User:Namir Riptide|Namir Riptide]] ([[User talk:Namir Riptide|talk]]) 16:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Norman Mailer’s Letters on An American Dream, 1963–1969

2019-04-05T01:08:32Z

Namir Riptide: /* Final Letter Format */ Replied

{{to do|1}}

''Translating'' this book from print to digital will be our primary objective for the spring 2019. Here are some things we have to decide:

==Project Organization==
Should each letter have its own page? I’m leaning toward '''yes''' here.
: Yes. [[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 12:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Grlucas}} Do we need to seek permission for the Mailer letters? [[User:JVbird|JVbird]] ([[User talk:JVbird]])
:::{{reply to|JVbird}} No, I have already secured permissions. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 20:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

==Letter Pages==
How should each page be named so each is unique? I think subpages would be the way to go here, like ''Structured Vision'', but then what do we call each page? “To: So and So”, like: <code>Norman Mailer's Letters on An American Dream, 1963–1969/To: Eiichi Yaminishi</code>? What do we do when we have more than one letter to Eiichi Yaminishi? Should we add the date? <code>Norman Mailer's Letters on An American Dream, 1963–1969/To: Eiichi Yaminishi (November 25, 1963)</code> It’s beginning to get unwieldy. Suggestions?
: I decided against using subpages, so each letter will have its own page, linked both off of [[AAD:Letters]] and [[Norman Mailer’s Letters]]. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 12:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
:: I spoke with my librarian, Gilbert Deas about the issue of posting Mailer's letters and Gilbert suggested we do use subsections by year and author. For example, in 1963 Mailer wrote three letters on the same date. The subsections would look something like this:
1963:
October 15- Andre Deutsch, Alan Earney, Reed Whittemore
October 16- Eiichi Yaminishi
:: or another suggestion would be to: Putting each person's name such "Letters to So and So" then list the date of each letter to that person under their name with date linking to the letter on another page. --[[User:Dillbug|Dillbug]] ([[User talk:Dillbug|talk]]) 17:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|Dillbug}} How about the way I began doing it with a table on the [[AAD:Letters|main page]]? This is close to Gilbert’s suggestion. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 21:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
::::{{reply to|Grlucas}} I think a table would work well and make adding the letters much easier. I would like to work on adding the letters. Where do I find the actual letters to digitize and format?--[[User:Dillbug|Dillbug]] ([[User talk:Dillbug|talk]]) 21:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{reply to|Dillbug}} Everything you need is in the shared Google drive. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 21:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

== Final Letter Format ==
OK, I decided on the final letter format. See either of the [[AAD:Letters|first two letters for an example]]. I added a letterhead template and decided that we should make each letter's introductory statement into footnotes. Please let me know if you have any questions. I appreciate everyone's diligent and contentious work. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 12:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Namir Riptide|JVbird|Dillbug}} Please be sure you read above for posting letters! Thanks. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 21:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Grlucas}} Noted and fixed. Please check the last six letters to make sure. [[User:Namir Riptide|Namir Riptide]] ([[User talk:Namir Riptide|talk]]) 01:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

==Letter Format==
How should they be formatted? I.e., how should they appear on the screen? I think we should create a [[Wikipedia:Template:Navbar|navbar]] to link them. Other ideas? Check out ''[[Norman Mailer: Works and Days|WD]]'' entries for ideas.
: Each will use two templates: {{tl|NMletter}} as a header and {{tl|aade-sm}} somewhere on the page to identify it as part of this project. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 12:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I was playing with format. Which do you like better?
# The one I posted for [[Ambassador Gutierres-Olivos, September 18, 1963]]; or
# The one that's [[User:Grlucas/sandbox|in my sandbox]]?

What think you? —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 20:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Grlucas}} I like the one in your sandbox better. It seperates the letter from the rest of the information on the page visually. [[User:Namir Riptide|Namir Riptide]] ([[User talk:Namir Riptide|talk]]) 19:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

:: {{reply to|Grlucas}} I agree with Namir the sandbox looks so much better and very similar to the example you provided to follow.--[[User:Dillbug|Dillbug]] ([[User talk:Dillbug|talk]]) 18:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Namir Riptide}} Yeah, I thought I did, too, but it doesn't work too well when you resize your browser window. Maybe if we aligned everything on the left, it would work better. I can keep playing. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 21:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|Grlucas}} Unfortuantely, with the formatting from the sandbox example, the addresses spill out of the box and the signature wraps around to the next line. A few colons less and they would fit. But the two letters available for viewing are not the same format. Which to use with our letter postings in our sandboxes? [[User:Namir Riptide|Namir Riptide]] ([[User talk:Namir Riptide|talk]]) 00:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
::::{{reply to|Namir Riptide}} Sandboxes are unnecessary in this case. Just work on the letters in the main space. Scary...
:::::{{reply to|Grlucas}} Still using them to play around with formatting and editing is okay, yes? And i have run into another problem . the Letters i got from our student talk do not have pages for me to add them.
::::::{{reply to|Namir Riptide}} You may use your sandbox for anything you'd like. I'm not sure what you mean by "do not have pages"? —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 11:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::::{{reply to|Grlucas}} It was that the links to pages for the letters were not made. I figured it out and have posted the letters I was to do. I have also added links to other letters not yet done.

I was also thinking that instead of introducing the letters, we put the introductory comments in footnotes. The intros made sense in a book format, but footnotes might make more sense here. What say you? —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 00:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Grlucas}} Dr. Lucas, I posted all of my letters from January 1964 - March 1964 in separate sandboxes using your sandbox format for an example. I put any introductory comments at the beginning of each letter as in your example. Should I now change the format? If so, which format should I use? Are we now to post them directly to PM? --[[User:Dillbug|Dillbug]] ([[User talk:Dillbug|talk]]) 18:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|Dillbug}} Be sure you read the conversation. There's no need to use sandboxes. Also see [[#Final Letter Format]] above. Alterations in your letters will need to be made. Thanks. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 21:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

:I think knowing what is going on when reading the letters may help in understanding why the letter is important to be posted. [[User:Namir Riptide|Namir Riptide]] ([[User talk:Namir Riptide|talk]]) 01:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

==Categories==
What will be our category schema?
: Each of the above templates will include appropriate categories. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 12:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

===Notes===
{{reflist}}

Susan Abrams, September 24, 1966

2019-04-05T01:05:32Z

Namir Riptide: Fixed Formatting

{{NMletter}}

{{Letterhead start|styles = margin: 2em 2em 2em 2em}}

::::::::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::::::::Provincetown, Massachusetts
::::::::::::::::::::September 24, 1966

Dear Susan, <ref>In this letter to fan Susan Abrams, Mailer is referring to the film version of the novel. Friends told him it was awful.</ref>

Just a line to say hello. An American Dream is awful. No excuses I’m afraid, I just sold it. As for the recommendation, of course I knew.

::::::::::::::::::::Best, etc.,<br />
::::::::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
{{letterhead end}}

{{Aade-sm}}
===Notes===
{{reflist}}

{{Aad-letters}}

Yale M. Udoff, September 24, 1966

2019-04-05T01:05:23Z

Namir Riptide: Fixed Formatting

{{NMletter}}

{{Letterhead start|styles = margin: 2em 2em 2em 2em}}

::::::::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::::::::Provincetown, Massachusetts
::::::::::::::::::::September 24, 1966

Dear Yale, <ref>Udoff was acquainted with both Mailer and Mann Rubin.</ref>

Thanks for your letter. Tell Mann Rubin I’d like to see his original screenplay of An American Dream in order to get a better idea of how and where Warner’s fucked it.

::::::::::::::::::::Best, etc.,<br />
::::::::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
{{letterhead end}}

{{Aade-sm}}
===Notes===
{{reflist}}

{{Aad-letters}}

Nancy Weber, September 24, 1966

2019-04-05T01:05:11Z

Namir Riptide: Fixed Formatting

{{NMletter}}

{{Letterhead start|styles = margin: 2em 2em 2em 2em}}

::::::::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::::::::Provincetown, Massachusetts
::::::::::::::::::::September 24, 1966

Dear Nancy, <ref>Weber’s interview with Mailer appeared in the March 1965 issue of Books, the literary supplement of the New York Post. It is one of only a few interviews he gave on the novel before it was published. Mailer did not know anything at the time about how Warner Brothers intended to film the novel and speculated in the interview on whether Frank Sinatra could play Stephen Rojack.  He also discussed the possibility of making [[An American Dream]] the first volume of a quartet in the manner of The Alexandria Quartet (1957-1960) of Lawrence Durrell (1912-1990), and commented on how An American Dream had its roots in his November 1960 Esquire essay on J.F.K., “Superman Comes to the Supermarket.” On the advice of friends, Mailer has never seen the film version of the novel. The Deer Park was turned into a play by Mailer and ran from 31 January to 21 May 1967 at the Off-Broadway Theatre de Lys.</ref>

I’m sorry to take so long to answer, but I haven’t gone near my mail in two months, and now I’m hacking my way through.  It’s the only way to stay alive. As for the film An American Dream, I haven’t seen it, but then I hardly suppose you have to.  The only thing is, I wouldn’t do an interview because I think if you sell something to Hollywood you’re one of the whores in the deal, and a whore shouldn’t complain about other whores, for that’s the basis of all comedy, so we’ll leave it at that.
I’ll be back in New York in November, and a few of us are going to produce The Deer Park Off-Broadway. We were doing it up here this summer. Maybe we can do an interview then.
Incidentally, although I think it can’t be easy on you, I’m glad you’re off the Post. You’re much too skillful an interviewer, let alone a writer, to work for that “schlockeria.”

::::::::::::::::::::Love and all,<br />
::::::::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
{{letterhead end}}

{{Aade-sm}}
===Notes===
{{reflist}}

{{Aad-letters}}

Sanford Sternlicht, September 26, 1966

2019-04-05T01:04:58Z

Namir Riptide: Fixed Formatting

{{NMletter}}

{{Letterhead start|styles = margin: 2em 2em 2em 2em}}

::::::::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::::::::Provincetown, Massachusetts
::::::::::::::::::::September 26, 1966

Dear Sandy, <ref>Sanford Sternlicht, an English professor at New York State University College at Oswego, wanted Mailer’s opinion of the film version.</ref>

Just a line to tell you that we may be in Provincetown Christmas week, for we own a home here now, but if we’re in New York, we’ll look forward to seeing you. You write, “We have as not yet seen An American Dream and find it difficult to imagine it confined to the screen.” Yes indeed, Sir, when you see it, you may find it difficult to imagine.

::::::::::::::::::::Best,<br />
::::::::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
{{letterhead end}}

{{Aade-sm}}
===Notes===
{{reflist}}

{{Aad-letters}}

Louis and Moos Mailer, September 25, 1966

2019-04-05T01:04:41Z

Namir Riptide: Fixed Formatting

{{NMletter}}

{{Letterhead start|styles = margin: 2em 2em 2em 2em}}

::::::::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::::::::Provincetown, Massachusetts
::::::::::::::::::::September 25, 1966

Dear Louis and Moos, <ref>The first stage version of The Deer Park, in two acts, was presented at Act IV, a Provincetown Theater, in August 1966, with Beverly Bentley as Lulu Myers.</ref> <ref>Cannibals and Christians, Mailer’s third miscellany, was published by Dial on 29 August 1966. Beverly gave birth to Stephen McLeod Mailer, their second son, on 10 March 1966. Basil was the son of Louis and Moos.</ref>

I haven’t written in ages. Please forgive me for not answering your fine letters, but this summer’s been unbelievable. I haven’t worked so hard in years. I got going at a great rate on a new novel and then just about the time I was half way through, everything in the scheme of things diverted me over to an old adaptation of The Deer Park, which I rewrote and changed from a five-hour play to a two-hour play. We did it up here in Provincetown in a theater Beverly helped to start (she is, by the way, a superb actress—woe is me—I’m not used to other talent in the family), and the play turned out well enough to be moved to New York. So we’re going to put it in on Off-Broadway this winter and if all goes well, it might be exciting, indeed. I have some hopes at any rate. As for the rest, all is well. Mother’s recovered completely from the operation, which proved, of course, not to be necessary—when will people finally realize that medicine exists first for the sake of doctors and their beastly hospitals. Cannibals and Christians came out and, to my surprise, received fairly good reviews. If Dad hasn’t taken care of it, I’m going to make certain a copy gets to you.
As for the boys, Michael is all box-office, prima donna, narcissistic, brilliant, spoiled, electric, frighteningly sexy, a complete self-starter, and Steve all attention and reaction and soft smiles and chuckles and fun. They’re going to make a great pair, knock on wood, as my mother would say.
As for the movie, An American Dream, don’t ask. An absolute disaster. My only consolation is that I had nothing to do with the makings of it, except for the tarty action of taking a large sum of money in sale from a large movie studio, for which I had no respect.

::::::::::::::::::::Give my best to Basil, Beverly sends love,<br />
::::::::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
{{letterhead end}}

{{Aade-sm}}
===Notes===
{{reflist}}

{{Aad-letters}}

Whit Burnett, 1969

2019-04-05T00:51:43Z

Namir Riptide:

{{NMletter}}

{{Letterhead start|styles = margin: 2em 2em 2em 2em}}

Dear Whit, <ref>Mailer’s story “The Greatest Thing in the World” won Story magazine’s national college contest and was published there by Burnett in November 1941, marking the beginning of Mailer’s literary career. His undated letter (probably written in 1969) prefaces a selection from [[An American Dream]] describing the murder of Deborah by Rojack that was published in Burnett’s 1970 anthology, This is My Best: In the Third Quarter of the Century. Mailer’s letter is perhaps his most considered and perceptive comment on the novel.</ref>

Sometimes it seems useful to think of two kinds of novels—novels of manners, and modern explosive surrealistic novels in which the very notion of society, let alone manners, is bulldozed away in order to see what strange skeletons of fish and what buried treasure comes up in the ore. Out of my own work I suppose Why Are We in Vietnam? would most satisfy the latter category, and An American Dream might prove for some to be my most substantial attack on the problem of writing a novel of manners. They are hard novels to do well. Now that we are approaching the end of the seventh decade of the twentieth century they are becoming novels which are almost impossible to do well. The old totemistic force of manners, the old totemistic belief that breaching a manner inspired a curse has been all but lost in the avalanche of social deterioration which characterizes our era. Yet what can appear more attractive and sinister to us than a tea ceremony at the edge of a cliff. So I often think An American Dream is my best book. I tried for more in this novel than anywhere else and hence was living for a while with themes not easily accessible to literary criticism, not even to examination. The passage I choose now is not obligatorily the best thousand words in the work, but comes from the latter part of the first chapter and therefore offers few discomforts of orientation to the reader, and no demand on me for a synopsis of preceding events. Perhaps it may also serve to illumine the fine nerve of dread back of every good manner. Manner is the mandarin of mood, and in the shattering of every mood is an existential breath—does laughter or the murderous next ensue?

::::::::::::::::::::Yours,<br />
::::::::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
{{letterhead end}}

{{Aade-sm}}
===Notes===
{{reflist}}

{{Aad-letters}}

Talk:Norman Mailer’s Letters on An American Dream, 1963–1969

2019-04-04T15:18:16Z

Namir Riptide: /* Letter Format */ Reply

{{to do|1}}

''Translating'' this book from print to digital will be our primary objective for the spring 2019. Here are some things we have to decide:

==Project Organization==
Should each letter have its own page? I’m leaning toward '''yes''' here.
: Yes. [[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 12:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Grlucas}} Do we need to seek permission for the Mailer letters? [[User:JVbird|JVbird]] ([[User talk:JVbird]])
:::{{reply to|JVbird}} No, I have already secured permissions. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 20:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

==Letter Pages==
How should each page be named so each is unique? I think subpages would be the way to go here, like ''Structured Vision'', but then what do we call each page? “To: So and So”, like: <code>Norman Mailer's Letters on An American Dream, 1963–1969/To: Eiichi Yaminishi</code>? What do we do when we have more than one letter to Eiichi Yaminishi? Should we add the date? <code>Norman Mailer's Letters on An American Dream, 1963–1969/To: Eiichi Yaminishi (November 25, 1963)</code> It’s beginning to get unwieldy. Suggestions?
: I decided against using subpages, so each letter will have its own page, linked both off of [[AAD:Letters]] and [[Norman Mailer’s Letters]]. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 12:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
:: I spoke with my librarian, Gilbert Deas about the issue of posting Mailer's letters and Gilbert suggested we do use subsections by year and author. For example, in 1963 Mailer wrote three letters on the same date. The subsections would look something like this:
1963:
October 15- Andre Deutsch, Alan Earney, Reed Whittemore
October 16- Eiichi Yaminishi
:: or another suggestion would be to: Putting each person's name such "Letters to So and So" then list the date of each letter to that person under their name with date linking to the letter on another page. --[[User:Dillbug|Dillbug]] ([[User talk:Dillbug|talk]]) 17:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|Dillbug}} How about the way I began doing it with a table on the [[AAD:Letters|main page]]? This is close to Gilbert’s suggestion. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 21:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
::::{{reply to|Grlucas}} I think a table would work well and make adding the letters much easier. I would like to work on adding the letters. Where do I find the actual letters to digitize and format?--[[User:Dillbug|Dillbug]] ([[User talk:Dillbug|talk]]) 21:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{reply to|Dillbug}} Everything you need is in the shared Google drive. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 21:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

==Letter Format==
How should they be formatted? I.e., how should they appear on the screen? I think we should create a [[Wikipedia:Template:Navbar|navbar]] to link them. Other ideas? Check out ''[[Norman Mailer: Works and Days|WD]]'' entries for ideas.
: Each will use two templates: {{tl|NMletter}} as a header and {{tl|aade-sm}} somewhere on the page to identify it as part of this project. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 12:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I was playing with format. Which do you like better?
# The one I posted for [[Ambassador Gutierres-Olivos, September 18, 1963]]; or
# The one that's [[User:Grlucas/sandbox|in my sandbox]]?

What think you? —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 20:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Grlucas}} I like the one in your sandbox better. It seperates the letter from the rest of the information on the page visually. [[User:Namir Riptide|Namir Riptide]] ([[User talk:Namir Riptide|talk]]) 19:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

:: {{reply to|Grlucas}} I agree with Namir the sandbox looks so much better and very similar to the example you provided to follow.--[[User:Dillbug|Dillbug]] ([[User talk:Dillbug|talk]]) 18:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Namir Riptide}} Yeah, I thought I did, too, but it doesn't work too well when you resize your browser window. Maybe if we aligned everything on the left, it would work better. I can keep playing. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 21:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|Grlucas}} Unfortuantely, with the formatting from the sandbox example, the addresses spill out of the box and the signature wraps around to the next line. A few colons less and they would fit. But the two letters available for viewing are not the same format. Which to use with our letter postings in our sandboxes? [[User:Namir Riptide|Namir Riptide]] ([[User talk:Namir Riptide|talk]]) 00:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
::::{{reply to|Namir Riptide}} Sandboxes are unnecessary in this case. Just work on the letters in the main space. Scary...
:::::{{reply to|Grlucas}} Still using them to play around with formatting and editing is okay, yes? And i have run into another problem . the Letters i got from our student talk do not have pages for me to add them.
::::::{{reply to|Namir Riptide}} You may use your sandbox for anything you'd like. I'm not sure what you mean by "do not have pages"? —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 11:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::::{{reply to|Grlucas}} It was that the links to pages for the letters were not made. I figured it out and have posted the letters I was to do. I have also added links to other letters not yet done.

I was also thinking that instead of introducing the letters, we put the introductory comments in footnotes. The intros made sense in a book format, but footnotes might make more sense here. What say you? —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 00:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

:I think knowing what is going on when reading the letters may help in understanding why the letter is important to be posted. [[User:Namir Riptide|Namir Riptide]] ([[User talk:Namir Riptide|talk]]) 01:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

==Categories==
What will be our category schema?
: Each of the above templates will include appropriate categories. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 12:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

===Notes===
{{reflist}}

== Final Letter Format ==

OK, I decided on the final letter format. See either of the [[AAD:Letters|first two letters for an example]]. I added a letterhead template and decided that we should make each letter's introductory statement into footnotes. Please let me know if you have any questions. I appreciate everyone's diligent and contentious work. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 12:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Aad-letters

2019-04-04T15:15:54Z

Namir Riptide: added letter links for 1965

{{Navbox
| name = Aad-letters
| title = [[Norman Mailer’s Letters on An American Dream, 1963–1969|Norman Mailer’s Letters on ''An American Dream'', 1963–1969]]
| state = {{{state<includeonly>|expanded</includeonly>}}}
| bodyclass = hlist

| above =
* [[Norman Mailer’s Letters on An American Dream, 1963–1969/Introduction|Introduction]]
* [[Norman Mailer’s Letters on An American Dream, 1963–1969/Timeline of Events, 1962–1966|Timeline of Events]]
* [[Norman Mailer’s Letters on An American Dream, 1963–1969/AAD Word Count Comparison, Esquire and Dial Press Editions|Word Count Comparison]]
* [[AAD Expanded#Bibliography|Bibliography]]

| group1 = 1963
| list1 =
* [[Ambassador Gutierres-Olivos, September 18, 1963|Gutierres-Olivos 09/18]]
* [[Andre Deutsch, October 15, 1963|Deutsch 10/15]]
* [[Alan Earney, October 15, 1963|Earney 10/15]]
* [[Reed Whittemore, October 15, 1963|Whittemore 10/15]]
* [[Eiichi Yaminishi, October 16, 1963|Yaminishi 10/16]]
* [[Willie Morris, October 21, 1963|Morris 10/21]]
* [[Andre Deutsch, November 4, 1963|Deutsch 11/4]]
* [[Alan Earney, November 4, 1963|Earney 11/4]]
* [[Adeline Lubell Naiman, November 5, 1963|Naiman 11/5]]
* [[Francis Irby Gwaltney, November 9, 1963|Gwaltney 11/9]]
* [[Eiichi Yaminishi, November 26, 1963|Yaminishi 11/26]]
* [[Edmund Skellings, November 26, 1963|Skellings 11/26]]
* [[David Susskind, November 26, 1963|Susskind 11/26]]
* [[Mary Jane Shoultz, December 11, 1963|Shoultz 12/11]]
* [[Eiichi Yaminishi, December 15, 1963|Yaminishi 12/15]]
* [[Mickey Knox, December 17, 1963|Knox 12/17]]
* [[Francis Irby Gwaltney, December 20, 1963|Gwaltney 12/20]]
* [[Rita Halle Kleeman, December 20, 1963|Kleeman 12/20]]

| group2 = 1964
| list2 =
* ...

| group3 = 1965
| list3 =
* [[Eiichi Yaminishi, January 27, 1966|Yaminishi 01/27]]
* [[Diana Athill, February 25, 1965|Athill 02/25]]
* [[Richard Kluger, March 22, 1965|Kluger 03/22]]
* [[Diana Athill, March 23, 1965|Athill 03/23]]
* [[Alan Earney, March 23,1965|Earney 03/23]]
* [[Jason Epstein, March 25, 1965|Epstein 03/25]]
* [[Don Carpenter, March 25, 1965|Carpenter 03/25]]
* [[Diana Trilling, March 25, 1965|Trilling 03/25]]
* [[Diana Trilling, April 6, 1965|Trilling 04/06]]
* [[Donald Kaufmann, April 20, 1965|Kaufmann 04/20]]
* [[John W. Aldridge, April 23, 1965|Aldridge 04/23]]
* [[Moos Mailer, April 23, 1965|Mailer 04/23]]
* [[John W. Aldridge, June 8, 1965|Aldridge 06/08]]
* [[John William Corrington, June 8, 1965|Corrington 06/08]]
* [[Roger Shattuck, June 8, 1965|Shattuck 06/08]]
* [[Diana Trilling, June 8, 1965|Trilling 06/08]]
* [[John A. Meixner, June 12, 1965|Meixner 06/12]]
* [[Diana Trilling, July 14, 1965|Trilling 07/14]]
* [[John W. Aldridge, August 17, 1965|Aldridge 08/17]]
* [[LIrving J. Weiss, August 26, 1965|Weiss 08/26]]

| group4 = 1966
| list4 =
* [[Lionel Abel, February 28, 1966|Abel 02/28]]
* [[Mann Rubin, March 24, 1966|Rubin 03/24]]
* [[Lonnie L. Wells, April 16, 1966|Wells 04/16]]
* [[Susan Abrams, September 24, 1966|Abrams 09/24]]
* [[Yale M. Udoff, September 24, 1966|Udoff 09/24]]
* [[Nancy Weber, September 24, 1966|Weber 09/24]]
* [[Louis and Moos Mailer, September 25, 1966|Mailer 09/25]]
* [[Sanford Sternlicht, September 26, 1966|Sternlicht 09/26]]

| group5 = 1969
| list5 =
* [[Whit Burnett, 1969|Burnett, n/d]]

}}<noinclude>
{{collapsible option}}
</noinclude>

Susan Abrams, September 24, 1966

2019-04-04T14:49:10Z

Namir Riptide: Added Letter transcript

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|In this letter to fan Susan Abrams, Mailer is referring to the film version of the novel. Friends told him it was awful.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Susan,

Just a line to say hello. An American Dream is awful. No excuses I’m afraid, I just sold it. As for the recommendation, of course I knew.

:::::::::::::::Best, etc.,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

Yale M. Udoff, September 24, 1966

2019-04-04T14:47:18Z

Namir Riptide: removed extra code

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Udoff was acquainted with both Mailer and Mann Rubin.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Yale,

Thanks for your letter. Tell Mann Rubin I’d like to see his original screenplay of An American Dream in order to get a better idea of how and where Warner’s fucked it.

::::::::::::::::Best, etc.,<br />
::::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

Yale M. Udoff, September 24, 1966

2019-04-04T14:46:28Z

Namir Riptide: Added Letter transcript

{{Aad-letters}}

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Udoff was acquainted with both Mailer and Mann Rubin.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Yale,

Thanks for your letter. Tell Mann Rubin I’d like to see his original screenplay of An American Dream in order to get a better idea of how and where Warner’s fucked it.

::::::::::::::::Best, etc.,<br />
::::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

Nancy Weber, September 24, 1966

2019-04-04T14:45:09Z

Namir Riptide: Added Letter transcript

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Weber’s interview with Mailer appeared in the March 1965 issue of Books, the literary supplement of the New York Post. It is one of only a few interviews he gave on the novel before it was published. Mailer did not know anything at the time about how Warner Brothers intended to film the novel and speculated in the interview on whether Frank Sinatra could play Stephen Rojack.  He also discussed the possibility of making An American Dream the first volume of a quartet in the manner of The Alexandria Quartet (1957-1960) of Lawrence Durrell (1912-1990), and commented on how An American Dream had its roots in his November 1960 Esquire essay on J.F.K., “Superman Comes to the Supermarket.” On the advice of friends, Mailer has never seen the film version of the novel. The Deer Park was turned into a play by Mailer and ran from 31 January to 21 May 1967 at the Off-Broadway Theatre de Lys.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
:::::::::::::: Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Nancy,

I’m sorry to take so long to answer, but I haven’t gone near my mail in two months, and now I’m hacking my way through.  It’s the only way to stay alive. As for the film An American Dream, I haven’t seen it, but then I hardly suppose you have to.  The only thing is, I wouldn’t do an interview because I think if you sell something to Hollywood you’re one of the whores in the deal, and a whore shouldn’t complain about other whores, for that’s the basis of all comedy, so we’ll leave it at that.
I’ll be back in New York in November, and a few of us are going to produce The Deer Park Off-Broadway. We were doing it up here this summer. Maybe we can do an interview then.
Incidentally, although I think it can’t be easy on you, I’m glad you’re off the Post. You’re much too skillful an interviewer, let alone a writer, to work for that “schlockeria.”

:::::::::::::::Love and all,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

Louis and Moos Mailer, September 25, 1966

2019-04-04T14:43:42Z

Namir Riptide: Added Letter transcript

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|The first stage version of The Deer Park, in two acts, was presented at Act IV, a Provincetown Theater, in August 1966, with Beverly Bentley as Lulu Myers.
Cannibals and Christians, Mailer’s third miscellany, was published by Dial on 29 August 1966. Beverly gave birth to Stephen McLeod Mailer, their second son, on 10 March 1966. Basil was the son of Louis and Moos.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Louis and Moos,

I haven’t written in ages. Please forgive me for not answering your fine letters, but this summer’s been unbelievable. I haven’t worked so hard in years. I got going at a great rate on a new novel and then just about the time I was half way through, everything in the scheme of things diverted me over to an old adaptation of The Deer Park, which I rewrote and changed from a five-hour play to a two-hour play. We did it up here in Provincetown in a theater Beverly helped to start (she is, by the way, a superb actress—woe is me—I’m not used to other talent in the family), and the play turned out well enough to be moved to New York. So we’re going to put it in on Off-Broadway this winter and if all goes well, it might be exciting, indeed. I have some hopes at any rate. As for the rest, all is well. Mother’s recovered completely from the operation, which proved, of course, not to be necessary—when will people finally realize that medicine exists first for the sake of doctors and their beastly hospitals. Cannibals and Christians came out and, to my surprise, received fairly good reviews. If Dad hasn’t taken care of it, I’m going to make certain a copy gets to you.
As for the boys, Michael is all box-office, prima donna, narcissistic, brilliant, spoiled, electric, frighteningly sexy, a complete self-starter, and Steve all attention and reaction and soft smiles and chuckles and fun. They’re going to make a great pair, knock on wood, as my mother would say.
As for the movie, An American Dream, don’t ask. An absolute disaster. My only consolation is that I had nothing to do with the makings of it, except for the tarty action of taking a large sum of money in sale from a large movie studio, for which I had no respect.

:::::::::::Give my best to Basil, Beverly sends love,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

Sanford Sternlicht, September 26, 1966

2019-04-04T14:41:12Z

Namir Riptide: Added Letter transcript

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Sanford Sternlicht, an English professor at New York State University College at Oswego, wanted Mailer’s opinion of the film version.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Sandy,

Just a line to tell you that we may be in Provincetown Christmas week, for we own a home here now, but if we’re in New York, we’ll look forward to seeing you. You write, “We have as not yet seen An American Dream and find it difficult to imagine it confined to the screen.” Yes indeed, Sir, when you see it, you may find it difficult to imagine.

:::::::::::::::Best,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

Whit Burnett, 1969

2019-04-04T14:38:53Z

Namir Riptide: Added Letter transcript

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Mailer’s story “The Greatest Thing in the World” won Story magazine’s national college contest and was published there by Burnett in November 1941, marking the beginning of Mailer’s literary career. His undated letter (probably written in 1969) prefaces a selection from An American Dream describing the murder of Deborah by Rojack that was published in Burnett’s 1970 anthology, This is My Best: In the Third Quarter of the Century. Mailer’s letter is perhaps his most considered and perceptive comment on the novel.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}

Dear Whit,

Sometimes it seems useful to think of two kinds of novels—novels of manners, and modern explosive surrealistic novels in which the very notion of society, let alone manners, is bulldozed away in order to see what strange skeletons of fish and what buried treasure comes up in the ore. Out of my own work I suppose Why Are We in Vietnam? would most satisfy the latter category, and An American Dream might prove for some to be my most substantial attack on the problem of writing a novel of manners. They are hard novels to do well. Now that we are approaching the end of the seventh decade of the twentieth century they are becoming novels which are almost impossible to do well. The old totemistic force of manners, the old totemistic belief that breaching a manner inspired a curse has been all but lost in the avalanche of social deterioration which characterizes our era. Yet what can appear more attractive and sinister to us than a tea ceremony at the edge of a cliff. So I often think An American Dream is my best book. I tried for more in this novel than anywhere else and hence was living for a while with themes not easily accessible to literary criticism, not even to examination. The passage I choose now is not obligatorily the best thousand words in the work, but comes from the latter part of the first chapter and therefore offers few discomforts of orientation to the reader, and no demand on me for a synopsis of preceding events. Perhaps it may also serve to illumine the fine nerve of dread back of every good manner. Manner is the mandarin of mood, and in the shattering of every mood is an existential breath—does laughter or the murderous next ensue?

:::::::::::::::Yours,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

Template:Aad-letters

2019-04-04T02:01:53Z

Namir Riptide: Added letters to list for adding pages

Talk:Norman Mailer’s Letters on An American Dream, 1963–1969

2019-04-04T01:01:31Z

Namir Riptide: /* Letter Format */ Reply

{{to do|1}}

''Translating'' this book from print to digital will be our primary objective for the spring 2019. Here are some things we have to decide:

==Project Organization==
Should each letter have its own page? I’m leaning toward '''yes''' here.
: Yes. [[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 12:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Grlucas}} Do we need to seek permission for the Mailer letters? [[User:JVbird|JVbird]] ([[User talk:JVbird]])
:::{{reply to|JVbird}} No, I have already secured permissions. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 20:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

==Letter Pages==
How should each page be named so each is unique? I think subpages would be the way to go here, like ''Structured Vision'', but then what do we call each page? “To: So and So”, like: <code>Norman Mailer's Letters on An American Dream, 1963–1969/To: Eiichi Yaminishi</code>? What do we do when we have more than one letter to Eiichi Yaminishi? Should we add the date? <code>Norman Mailer's Letters on An American Dream, 1963–1969/To: Eiichi Yaminishi (November 25, 1963)</code> It’s beginning to get unwieldy. Suggestions?
: I decided against using subpages, so each letter will have its own page, linked both off of [[AAD:Letters]] and [[Norman Mailer’s Letters]]. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 12:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
:: I spoke with my librarian, Gilbert Deas about the issue of posting Mailer's letters and Gilbert suggested we do use subsections by year and author. For example, in 1963 Mailer wrote three letters on the same date. The subsections would look something like this:
1963:
October 15- Andre Deutsch, Alan Earney, Reed Whittemore
October 16- Eiichi Yaminishi
:: or another suggestion would be to: Putting each person's name such "Letters to So and So" then list the date of each letter to that person under their name with date linking to the letter on another page. --[[User:Dillbug|Dillbug]] ([[User talk:Dillbug|talk]]) 17:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|Dillbug}} How about the way I began doing it with a table on the [[AAD:Letters|main page]]? This is close to Gilbert’s suggestion. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 21:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
::::{{reply to|Grlucas}} I think a table would work well and make adding the letters much easier. I would like to work on adding the letters. Where do I find the actual letters to digitize and format?--[[User:Dillbug|Dillbug]] ([[User talk:Dillbug|talk]]) 21:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{reply to|Dillbug}} Everything you need is in the shared Google drive. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 21:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

==Letter Format==
How should they be formatted? I.e., how should they appear on the screen? I think we should create a [[Wikipedia:Template:Navbar|navbar]] to link them. Other ideas? Check out ''[[Norman Mailer: Works and Days|WD]]'' entries for ideas.
: Each will use two templates: {{tl|NMletter}} as a header and {{tl|aade-sm}} somewhere on the page to identify it as part of this project. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 12:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I was playing with format. Which do you like better?
# The one I posted for [[Ambassador Gutierres-Olivos, September 18, 1963]]; or
# The one that's [[User:Grlucas/sandbox|in my sandbox]]?

What think you? —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 20:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Grlucas}} I like the one in your sandbox better. It seperates the letter from the rest of the information on the page visually. [[User:Namir Riptide|Namir Riptide]] ([[User talk:Namir Riptide|talk]]) 19:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

:: {{reply to|Grlucas}} I agree with Namir the sandbox looks so much better and very similar to the example you provided to follow.--[[User:Dillbug|Dillbug]] ([[User talk:Dillbug|talk]]) 18:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Namir Riptide}} Yeah, I thought I did, too, but it doesn't work too well when you resize your browser window. Maybe if we aligned everything on the left, it would work better. I can keep playing. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 21:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|Grlucas}} Unfortuantely, with the formatting from the sandbox example, the addresses spill out of the box and the signature wraps around to the next line. A few colons less and they would fit. But the two letters available for viewing are not the same format. Which to use with our letter postings in our sandboxes? [[User:Namir Riptide|Namir Riptide]] ([[User talk:Namir Riptide|talk]]) 00:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
::::{{reply to|Namir Riptide}} Sandboxes are unnecessary in this case. Just work on the letters in the main space. Scary...

I was also thinking that instead of introducing the letters, we put the introductory comments in footnotes. The intros made sense in a book format, but footnotes might make more sense here. What say you? —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 00:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{reply to|Grlucas}} Still using them to play around with formatting and editing is okay, yes? And i have run into another problem . the Letters i got from our student talk do not have pages for me to add them.
:I hink knowing what is going on when reading the letters may help in understanding why the letter is important to be posted. [[User:Namir Riptide|Namir Riptide]] ([[User talk:Namir Riptide|talk]]) 01:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

==Categories==
What will be our category schema?
: Each of the above templates will include appropriate categories. —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 12:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

===Notes===
{{reflist}}

User:Namir Riptide/sandbox

2019-04-04T00:51:26Z

Namir Riptide: /* Letters */ format playing

=== Letters ===

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|In this letter to fan Susan Abrams, Mailer is referring to the film version of the novel. Friends told him it was awful.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Susan,

Just a line to say hello. An American Dream is awful. No excuses I’m afraid, I just sold it. As for the recommendation, of course I knew.

:::::::::::::Best, etc.,<br />
::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Udoff was acquainted with both Mailer and Mann Rubin.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
:::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::::Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Yale,

Thanks for your letter. Tell Mann Rubin I’d like to see his original screenplay of An American Dream in order to get a better idea of how and where Warner’s fucked it.

::::::::::::::::Best, etc.,<br />
::::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Weber’s interview with Mailer appeared in the March 1965 issue of Books, the literary supplement of the New York Post. It is one of only a few interviews he gave on the novel before it was published. Mailer did not know anything at the time about how Warner Brothers intended to film the novel and speculated in the interview on whether Frank Sinatra could play Stephen Rojack.  He also discussed the possibility of making An American Dream the first volume of a quartet in the manner of The Alexandria Quartet (1957-1960) of Lawrence Durrell (1912-1990), and commented on how An American Dream had its roots in his November 1960 Esquire essay on J.F.K., “Superman Comes to the Supermarket.” On the advice of friends, Mailer has never seen the film version of the novel. The Deer Park was turned into a play by Mailer and ran from 31 January to 21 May 1967 at the Off-Broadway Theatre de Lys.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
:::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::: Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Nancy,

I’m sorry to take so long to answer, but I haven’t gone near my mail in two months, and now I’m hacking my way through.  It’s the only way to stay alive. As for the film An American Dream, I haven’t seen it, but then I hardly suppose you have to.  The only thing is, I wouldn’t do an interview because I think if you sell something to Hollywood you’re one of the whores in the deal, and a whore shouldn’t complain about other whores, for that’s the basis of all comedy, so we’ll leave it at that.
I’ll be back in New York in November, and a few of us are going to produce The Deer Park Off-Broadway. We were doing it up here this summer. Maybe we can do an interview then.
Incidentally, although I think it can’t be easy on you, I’m glad you’re off the Post. You’re much too skillful an interviewer, let alone a writer, to work for that “schlockeria.”

:::::::::::::::Love and all,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|The first stage version of The Deer Park, in two acts, was presented at Act IV, a Provincetown Theater, in August 1966, with Beverly Bentley as Lulu Myers.
Cannibals and Christians, Mailer’s third miscellany, was published by Dial on 29 August 1966. Beverly gave birth to Stephen McLeod Mailer, their second son, on 10 March 1966. Basil was the son of Louis and Moos.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
:::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::: Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Louis and Moos,

I haven’t written in ages. Please forgive me for not answering your fine letters, but this summer’s been unbelievable. I haven’t worked so hard in years. I got going at a great rate on a new novel and then just about the time I was half way through, everything in the scheme of things diverted me over to an old adaptation of The Deer Park, which I rewrote and changed from a five-hour play to a two-hour play. We did it up here in Provincetown in a theater Beverly helped to start (she is, by the way, a superb actress—woe is me—I’m not used to other talent in the family), and the play turned out well enough to be moved to New York. So we’re going to put it in on Off-Broadway this winter and if all goes well, it might be exciting, indeed. I have some hopes at any rate. As for the rest, all is well. Mother’s recovered completely from the operation, which proved, of course, not to be necessary—when will people finally realize that medicine exists first for the sake of doctors and their beastly hospitals. Cannibals and Christians came out and, to my surprise, received fairly good reviews. If Dad hasn’t taken care of it, I’m going to make certain a copy gets to you.
As for the boys, Michael is all box-office, prima donna, narcissistic, brilliant, spoiled, electric, frighteningly sexy, a complete self-starter, and Steve all attention and reaction and soft smiles and chuckles and fun. They’re going to make a great pair, knock on wood, as my mother would say.
As for the movie, An American Dream, don’t ask. An absolute disaster. My only consolation is that I had nothing to do with the makings of it, except for the tarty action of taking a large sum of money in sale from a large movie studio, for which I had no respect.

:::::::::::::::Give my best to Basil, Beverly sends love,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Sanford Sternlicht, an English professor at New York State University College at Oswego, wanted Mailer’s opinion of the film version.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
:::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::: Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Sandy,

Just a line to tell you that we may be in Provincetown Christmas week, for we own a home here now, but if we’re in New York, we’ll look forward to seeing you. You write, “We have as not yet seen An American Dream and find it difficult to imagine it confined to the screen.” Yes indeed, Sir, when you see it, you may find it difficult to imagine.

:::::::::::::::Best,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Mailer’s story “The Greatest Thing in the World” won Story magazine’s national college contest and was published there by Burnett in November 1941, marking the beginning of Mailer’s literary career. His undated letter (probably written in 1969) prefaces a selection from An American Dream describing the murder of Deborah by Rojack that was published in Burnett’s 1970 anthology, This is My Best: In the Third Quarter of the Century. Mailer’s letter is perhaps his most considered and perceptive comment on the novel.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}

Dear Whit,

Sometimes it seems useful to think of two kinds of novels—novels of manners, and modern explosive surrealistic novels in which the very notion of society, let alone manners, is bulldozed away in order to see what strange skeletons of fish and what buried treasure comes up in the ore. Out of my own work I suppose Why Are We in Vietnam? would most satisfy the latter category, and An American Dream might prove for some to be my most substantial attack on the problem of writing a novel of manners. They are hard novels to do well. Now that we are approaching the end of the seventh decade of the twentieth century they are becoming novels which are almost impossible to do well. The old totemistic force of manners, the old totemistic belief that breaching a manner inspired a curse has been all but lost in the avalanche of social deterioration which characterizes our era. Yet what can appear more attractive and sinister to us than a tea ceremony at the edge of a cliff. So I often think An American Dream is my best book. I tried for more in this novel than anywhere else and hence was living for a while with themes not easily accessible to literary criticism, not even to examination. The passage I choose now is not obligatorily the best thousand words in the work, but comes from the latter part of the first chapter and therefore offers few discomforts of orientation to the reader, and no demand on me for a synopsis of preceding events. Perhaps it may also serve to illumine the fine nerve of dread back of every good manner. Manner is the mandarin of mood, and in the shattering of every mood is an existential breath—does laughter or the murderous next ensue?

:::::::::::::::Yours,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

User:Namir Riptide/sandbox

2019-04-04T00:40:29Z

Namir Riptide:

=== Letters ===

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|In this letter to fan Susan Abrams, Mailer is referring to the film version of the novel. Friends told him it was awful.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Susan,

Just a line to say hello. An American Dream is awful. No excuses I’m afraid, I just sold it. As for the recommendation, of course I knew.

:::::::::::Best, etc.,<br />
:::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Udoff was acquainted with both Mailer and Mann Rubin.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
:::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
:::::::::::::::Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Yale,

Thanks for your letter. Tell Mann Rubin I’d like to see his original screenplay of An American Dream in order to get a better idea of how and where Warner’s fucked it.

:::::::::::::::Best, etc.,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Weber’s interview with Mailer appeared in the March 1965 issue of Books, the literary supplement of the New York Post. It is one of only a few interviews he gave on the novel before it was published. Mailer did not know anything at the time about how Warner Brothers intended to film the novel and speculated in the interview on whether Frank Sinatra could play Stephen Rojack.  He also discussed the possibility of making An American Dream the first volume of a quartet in the manner of The Alexandria Quartet (1957-1960) of Lawrence Durrell (1912-1990), and commented on how An American Dream had its roots in his November 1960 Esquire essay on J.F.K., “Superman Comes to the Supermarket.” On the advice of friends, Mailer has never seen the film version of the novel. The Deer Park was turned into a play by Mailer and ran from 31 January to 21 May 1967 at the Off-Broadway Theatre de Lys.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
:::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::: Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Nancy,

I’m sorry to take so long to answer, but I haven’t gone near my mail in two months, and now I’m hacking my way through.  It’s the only way to stay alive. As for the film An American Dream, I haven’t seen it, but then I hardly suppose you have to.  The only thing is, I wouldn’t do an interview because I think if you sell something to Hollywood you’re one of the whores in the deal, and a whore shouldn’t complain about other whores, for that’s the basis of all comedy, so we’ll leave it at that.
I’ll be back in New York in November, and a few of us are going to produce The Deer Park Off-Broadway. We were doing it up here this summer. Maybe we can do an interview then.
Incidentally, although I think it can’t be easy on you, I’m glad you’re off the Post. You’re much too skillful an interviewer, let alone a writer, to work for that “schlockeria.”

:::::::::::::::Love and all,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|The first stage version of The Deer Park, in two acts, was presented at Act IV, a Provincetown Theater, in August 1966, with Beverly Bentley as Lulu Myers.
Cannibals and Christians, Mailer’s third miscellany, was published by Dial on 29 August 1966. Beverly gave birth to Stephen McLeod Mailer, their second son, on 10 March 1966. Basil was the son of Louis and Moos.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
:::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::: Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Louis and Moos,

I haven’t written in ages. Please forgive me for not answering your fine letters, but this summer’s been unbelievable. I haven’t worked so hard in years. I got going at a great rate on a new novel and then just about the time I was half way through, everything in the scheme of things diverted me over to an old adaptation of The Deer Park, which I rewrote and changed from a five-hour play to a two-hour play. We did it up here in Provincetown in a theater Beverly helped to start (she is, by the way, a superb actress—woe is me—I’m not used to other talent in the family), and the play turned out well enough to be moved to New York. So we’re going to put it in on Off-Broadway this winter and if all goes well, it might be exciting, indeed. I have some hopes at any rate. As for the rest, all is well. Mother’s recovered completely from the operation, which proved, of course, not to be necessary—when will people finally realize that medicine exists first for the sake of doctors and their beastly hospitals. Cannibals and Christians came out and, to my surprise, received fairly good reviews. If Dad hasn’t taken care of it, I’m going to make certain a copy gets to you.
As for the boys, Michael is all box-office, prima donna, narcissistic, brilliant, spoiled, electric, frighteningly sexy, a complete self-starter, and Steve all attention and reaction and soft smiles and chuckles and fun. They’re going to make a great pair, knock on wood, as my mother would say.
As for the movie, An American Dream, don’t ask. An absolute disaster. My only consolation is that I had nothing to do with the makings of it, except for the tarty action of taking a large sum of money in sale from a large movie studio, for which I had no respect.

:::::::::::::::Give my best to Basil, Beverly sends love,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Sanford Sternlicht, an English professor at New York State University College at Oswego, wanted Mailer’s opinion of the film version.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
:::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::: Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Sandy,

Just a line to tell you that we may be in Provincetown Christmas week, for we own a home here now, but if we’re in New York, we’ll look forward to seeing you. You write, “We have as not yet seen An American Dream and find it difficult to imagine it confined to the screen.” Yes indeed, Sir, when you see it, you may find it difficult to imagine.

:::::::::::::::Best,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Mailer’s story “The Greatest Thing in the World” won Story magazine’s national college contest and was published there by Burnett in November 1941, marking the beginning of Mailer’s literary career. His undated letter (probably written in 1969) prefaces a selection from An American Dream describing the murder of Deborah by Rojack that was published in Burnett’s 1970 anthology, This is My Best: In the Third Quarter of the Century. Mailer’s letter is perhaps his most considered and perceptive comment on the novel.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}

Dear Whit,

Sometimes it seems useful to think of two kinds of novels—novels of manners, and modern explosive surrealistic novels in which the very notion of society, let alone manners, is bulldozed away in order to see what strange skeletons of fish and what buried treasure comes up in the ore. Out of my own work I suppose Why Are We in Vietnam? would most satisfy the latter category, and An American Dream might prove for some to be my most substantial attack on the problem of writing a novel of manners. They are hard novels to do well. Now that we are approaching the end of the seventh decade of the twentieth century they are becoming novels which are almost impossible to do well. The old totemistic force of manners, the old totemistic belief that breaching a manner inspired a curse has been all but lost in the avalanche of social deterioration which characterizes our era. Yet what can appear more attractive and sinister to us than a tea ceremony at the edge of a cliff. So I often think An American Dream is my best book. I tried for more in this novel than anywhere else and hence was living for a while with themes not easily accessible to literary criticism, not even to examination. The passage I choose now is not obligatorily the best thousand words in the work, but comes from the latter part of the first chapter and therefore offers few discomforts of orientation to the reader, and no demand on me for a synopsis of preceding events. Perhaps it may also serve to illumine the fine nerve of dread back of every good manner. Manner is the mandarin of mood, and in the shattering of every mood is an existential breath—does laughter or the murderous next ensue?

:::::::::::::::Yours,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

User:Namir Riptide/sandbox

2019-04-04T00:34:24Z

Namir Riptide: added NMletter headers

=== Letters ===

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|In this letter to fan Susan Abrams, Mailer is referring to the film version of the novel. Friends told him it was awful.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
:::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::: Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Susan,

Just a line to say hello. An American Dream is awful. No excuses I’m afraid, I just sold it. As for the recommendation, of course I knew.

:::::::::::::::Best, etc.,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Udoff was acquainted with both Mailer and Mann Rubin.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
:::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
:::::::::::::::Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Yale,

Thanks for your letter. Tell Mann Rubin I’d like to see his original screenplay of An American Dream in order to get a better idea of how and where Warner’s fucked it.

:::::::::::::::Best, etc.,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Weber’s interview with Mailer appeared in the March 1965 issue of Books, the literary supplement of the New York Post. It is one of only a few interviews he gave on the novel before it was published. Mailer did not know anything at the time about how Warner Brothers intended to film the novel and speculated in the interview on whether Frank Sinatra could play Stephen Rojack.  He also discussed the possibility of making An American Dream the first volume of a quartet in the manner of The Alexandria Quartet (1957-1960) of Lawrence Durrell (1912-1990), and commented on how An American Dream had its roots in his November 1960 Esquire essay on J.F.K., “Superman Comes to the Supermarket.” On the advice of friends, Mailer has never seen the film version of the novel. The Deer Park was turned into a play by Mailer and ran from 31 January to 21 May 1967 at the Off-Broadway Theatre de Lys.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
:::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::: Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Nancy,

I’m sorry to take so long to answer, but I haven’t gone near my mail in two months, and now I’m hacking my way through.  It’s the only way to stay alive. As for the film An American Dream, I haven’t seen it, but then I hardly suppose you have to.  The only thing is, I wouldn’t do an interview because I think if you sell something to Hollywood you’re one of the whores in the deal, and a whore shouldn’t complain about other whores, for that’s the basis of all comedy, so we’ll leave it at that.
I’ll be back in New York in November, and a few of us are going to produce The Deer Park Off-Broadway. We were doing it up here this summer. Maybe we can do an interview then.
Incidentally, although I think it can’t be easy on you, I’m glad you’re off the Post. You’re much too skillful an interviewer, let alone a writer, to work for that “schlockeria.”

:::::::::::::::Love and all,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|The first stage version of The Deer Park, in two acts, was presented at Act IV, a Provincetown Theater, in August 1966, with Beverly Bentley as Lulu Myers.
Cannibals and Christians, Mailer’s third miscellany, was published by Dial on 29 August 1966. Beverly gave birth to Stephen McLeod Mailer, their second son, on 10 March 1966. Basil was the son of Louis and Moos.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
:::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::: Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Louis and Moos,

I haven’t written in ages. Please forgive me for not answering your fine letters, but this summer’s been unbelievable. I haven’t worked so hard in years. I got going at a great rate on a new novel and then just about the time I was half way through, everything in the scheme of things diverted me over to an old adaptation of The Deer Park, which I rewrote and changed from a five-hour play to a two-hour play. We did it up here in Provincetown in a theater Beverly helped to start (she is, by the way, a superb actress—woe is me—I’m not used to other talent in the family), and the play turned out well enough to be moved to New York. So we’re going to put it in on Off-Broadway this winter and if all goes well, it might be exciting, indeed. I have some hopes at any rate. As for the rest, all is well. Mother’s recovered completely from the operation, which proved, of course, not to be necessary—when will people finally realize that medicine exists first for the sake of doctors and their beastly hospitals. Cannibals and Christians came out and, to my surprise, received fairly good reviews. If Dad hasn’t taken care of it, I’m going to make certain a copy gets to you.
As for the boys, Michael is all box-office, prima donna, narcissistic, brilliant, spoiled, electric, frighteningly sexy, a complete self-starter, and Steve all attention and reaction and soft smiles and chuckles and fun. They’re going to make a great pair, knock on wood, as my mother would say.
As for the movie, An American Dream, don’t ask. An absolute disaster. My only consolation is that I had nothing to do with the makings of it, except for the tarty action of taking a large sum of money in sale from a large movie studio, for which I had no respect.

:::::::::::::::Give my best to Basil, Beverly sends love,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Sanford Sternlicht, an English professor at New York State University College at Oswego, wanted Mailer’s opinion of the film version.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
:::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::: Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Sandy,

Just a line to tell you that we may be in Provincetown Christmas week, for we own a home here now, but if we’re in New York, we’ll look forward to seeing you. You write, “We have as not yet seen An American Dream and find it difficult to imagine it confined to the screen.” Yes indeed, Sir, when you see it, you may find it difficult to imagine.

:::::::::::::::Best,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{NMletter}}
{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Mailer’s story “The Greatest Thing in the World” won Story magazine’s national college contest and was published there by Burnett in November 1941, marking the beginning of Mailer’s literary career. His undated letter (probably written in 1969) prefaces a selection from An American Dream describing the murder of Deborah by Rojack that was published in Burnett’s 1970 anthology, This is My Best: In the Third Quarter of the Century. Mailer’s letter is perhaps his most considered and perceptive comment on the novel.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}

Dear Whit,

Sometimes it seems useful to think of two kinds of novels—novels of manners, and modern explosive surrealistic novels in which the very notion of society, let alone manners, is bulldozed away in order to see what strange skeletons of fish and what buried treasure comes up in the ore. Out of my own work I suppose Why Are We in Vietnam? would most satisfy the latter category, and An American Dream might prove for some to be my most substantial attack on the problem of writing a novel of manners. They are hard novels to do well. Now that we are approaching the end of the seventh decade of the twentieth century they are becoming novels which are almost impossible to do well. The old totemistic force of manners, the old totemistic belief that breaching a manner inspired a curse has been all but lost in the avalanche of social deterioration which characterizes our era. Yet what can appear more attractive and sinister to us than a tea ceremony at the edge of a cliff. So I often think An American Dream is my best book. I tried for more in this novel than anywhere else and hence was living for a while with themes not easily accessible to literary criticism, not even to examination. The passage I choose now is not obligatorily the best thousand words in the work, but comes from the latter part of the first chapter and therefore offers few discomforts of orientation to the reader, and no demand on me for a synopsis of preceding events. Perhaps it may also serve to illumine the fine nerve of dread back of every good manner. Manner is the mandarin of mood, and in the shattering of every mood is an existential breath—does laughter or the murderous next ensue?

:::::::::::::::Yours,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

Talk:Norman Mailer’s Letters on An American Dream, 1963–1969

2019-04-04T00:30:03Z

Namir Riptide: /* Letter Format */ Formatting Error

User:Namir Riptide/sandbox

2019-04-04T00:18:20Z

Namir Riptide: Added Letters to Sandbox

=== Letters ===

{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|In this letter to fan Susan Abrams, Mailer is referring to the film version of the novel. Friends told him it was awful.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
:::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::: Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Susan,

Just a line to say hello. An American Dream is awful. No excuses I’m afraid, I just sold it. As for the recommendation, of course I knew.

:::::::::::::::Best, etc.,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Udoff was acquainted with both Mailer and Mann Rubin.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
:::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
:::::::::::::::Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Yale,

Thanks for your letter. Tell Mann Rubin I’d like to see his original screenplay of An American Dream in order to get a better idea of how and where Warner’s fucked it.

:::::::::::::::Best, etc.,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Weber’s interview with Mailer appeared in the March 1965 issue of Books, the literary supplement of the New York Post. It is one of only a few interviews he gave on the novel before it was published. Mailer did not know anything at the time about how Warner Brothers intended to film the novel and speculated in the interview on whether Frank Sinatra could play Stephen Rojack.  He also discussed the possibility of making An American Dream the first volume of a quartet in the manner of The Alexandria Quartet (1957-1960) of Lawrence Durrell (1912-1990), and commented on how An American Dream had its roots in his November 1960 Esquire essay on J.F.K., “Superman Comes to the Supermarket.” On the advice of friends, Mailer has never seen the film version of the novel. The Deer Park was turned into a play by Mailer and ran from 31 January to 21 May 1967 at the Off-Broadway Theatre de Lys.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
:::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::: Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Nancy,

I’m sorry to take so long to answer, but I haven’t gone near my mail in two months, and now I’m hacking my way through.  It’s the only way to stay alive. As for the film An American Dream, I haven’t seen it, but then I hardly suppose you have to.  The only thing is, I wouldn’t do an interview because I think if you sell something to Hollywood you’re one of the whores in the deal, and a whore shouldn’t complain about other whores, for that’s the basis of all comedy, so we’ll leave it at that.
I’ll be back in New York in November, and a few of us are going to produce The Deer Park Off-Broadway. We were doing it up here this summer. Maybe we can do an interview then.
Incidentally, although I think it can’t be easy on you, I’m glad you’re off the Post. You’re much too skillful an interviewer, let alone a writer, to work for that “schlockeria.”

:::::::::::::::Love and all,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|The first stage version of The Deer Park, in two acts, was presented at Act IV, a Provincetown Theater, in August 1966, with Beverly Bentley as Lulu Myers.
Cannibals and Christians, Mailer’s third miscellany, was published by Dial on 29 August 1966. Beverly gave birth to Stephen McLeod Mailer, their second son, on 10 March 1966. Basil was the son of Louis and Moos.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
:::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::: Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Louis and Moos,

I haven’t written in ages. Please forgive me for not answering your fine letters, but this summer’s been unbelievable. I haven’t worked so hard in years. I got going at a great rate on a new novel and then just about the time I was half way through, everything in the scheme of things diverted me over to an old adaptation of The Deer Park, which I rewrote and changed from a five-hour play to a two-hour play. We did it up here in Provincetown in a theater Beverly helped to start (she is, by the way, a superb actress—woe is me—I’m not used to other talent in the family), and the play turned out well enough to be moved to New York. So we’re going to put it in on Off-Broadway this winter and if all goes well, it might be exciting, indeed. I have some hopes at any rate. As for the rest, all is well. Mother’s recovered completely from the operation, which proved, of course, not to be necessary—when will people finally realize that medicine exists first for the sake of doctors and their beastly hospitals. Cannibals and Christians came out and, to my surprise, received fairly good reviews. If Dad hasn’t taken care of it, I’m going to make certain a copy gets to you.
As for the boys, Michael is all box-office, prima donna, narcissistic, brilliant, spoiled, electric, frighteningly sexy, a complete self-starter, and Steve all attention and reaction and soft smiles and chuckles and fun. They’re going to make a great pair, knock on wood, as my mother would say.
As for the movie, An American Dream, don’t ask. An absolute disaster. My only consolation is that I had nothing to do with the makings of it, except for the tarty action of taking a large sum of money in sale from a large movie studio, for which I had no respect.

:::::::::::::::Give my best to Basil, Beverly sends love,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Sanford Sternlicht, an English professor at New York State University College at Oswego, wanted Mailer’s opinion of the film version.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
:::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::: Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Sandy,

Just a line to tell you that we may be in Provincetown Christmas week, for we own a home here now, but if we’re in New York, we’ll look forward to seeing you. You write, “We have as not yet seen An American Dream and find it difficult to imagine it confined to the screen.” Yes indeed, Sir, when you see it, you may find it difficult to imagine.

:::::::::::::::Best,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Mailer’s story “The Greatest Thing in the World” won Story magazine’s national college contest and was published there by Burnett in November 1941, marking the beginning of Mailer’s literary career. His undated letter (probably written in 1969) prefaces a selection from An American Dream describing the murder of Deborah by Rojack that was published in Burnett’s 1970 anthology, This is My Best: In the Third Quarter of the Century. Mailer’s letter is perhaps his most considered and perceptive comment on the novel.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}

Dear Whit,

Sometimes it seems useful to think of two kinds of novels—novels of manners, and modern explosive surrealistic novels in which the very notion of society, let alone manners, is bulldozed away in order to see what strange skeletons of fish and what buried treasure comes up in the ore. Out of my own work I suppose Why Are We in Vietnam? would most satisfy the latter category, and An American Dream might prove for some to be my most substantial attack on the problem of writing a novel of manners. They are hard novels to do well. Now that we are approaching the end of the seventh decade of the twentieth century they are becoming novels which are almost impossible to do well. The old totemistic force of manners, the old totemistic belief that breaching a manner inspired a curse has been all but lost in the avalanche of social deterioration which characterizes our era. Yet what can appear more attractive and sinister to us than a tea ceremony at the edge of a cliff. So I often think An American Dream is my best book. I tried for more in this novel than anywhere else and hence was living for a while with themes not easily accessible to literary criticism, not even to examination. The passage I choose now is not obligatorily the best thousand words in the work, but comes from the latter part of the first chapter and therefore offers few discomforts of orientation to the reader, and no demand on me for a synopsis of preceding events. Perhaps it may also serve to illumine the fine nerve of dread back of every good manner. Manner is the mandarin of mood, and in the shattering of every mood is an existential breath—does laughter or the murderous next ensue?

:::::::::::::::Yours,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

User:Namir Riptide/sandbox

2019-04-04T00:17:31Z

Namir Riptide: Added Letters to Sandbox

== Letters ==

{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|In this letter to fan Susan Abrams, Mailer is referring to the film version of the novel. Friends told him it was awful.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
:::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::: Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Susan,

Just a line to say hello. An American Dream is awful. No excuses I’m afraid, I just sold it. As for the recommendation, of course I knew.

:::::::::::::::Best, etc.,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Udoff was acquainted with both Mailer and Mann Rubin.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
:::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
:::::::::::::::Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Yale,

Thanks for your letter. Tell Mann Rubin I’d like to see his original screenplay of An American Dream in order to get a better idea of how and where Warner’s fucked it.

:::::::::::::::Best, etc.,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Weber’s interview with Mailer appeared in the March 1965 issue of Books, the literary supplement of the New York Post. It is one of only a few interviews he gave on the novel before it was published. Mailer did not know anything at the time about how Warner Brothers intended to film the novel and speculated in the interview on whether Frank Sinatra could play Stephen Rojack.  He also discussed the possibility of making An American Dream the first volume of a quartet in the manner of The Alexandria Quartet (1957-1960) of Lawrence Durrell (1912-1990), and commented on how An American Dream had its roots in his November 1960 Esquire essay on J.F.K., “Superman Comes to the Supermarket.” On the advice of friends, Mailer has never seen the film version of the novel. The Deer Park was turned into a play by Mailer and ran from 31 January to 21 May 1967 at the Off-Broadway Theatre de Lys.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
:::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::: Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Nancy,

I’m sorry to take so long to answer, but I haven’t gone near my mail in two months, and now I’m hacking my way through.  It’s the only way to stay alive. As for the film An American Dream, I haven’t seen it, but then I hardly suppose you have to.  The only thing is, I wouldn’t do an interview because I think if you sell something to Hollywood you’re one of the whores in the deal, and a whore shouldn’t complain about other whores, for that’s the basis of all comedy, so we’ll leave it at that.
I’ll be back in New York in November, and a few of us are going to produce The Deer Park Off-Broadway. We were doing it up here this summer. Maybe we can do an interview then.
Incidentally, although I think it can’t be easy on you, I’m glad you’re off the Post. You’re much too skillful an interviewer, let alone a writer, to work for that “schlockeria.”

:::::::::::::::Love and all,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|The first stage version of The Deer Park, in two acts, was presented at Act IV, a Provincetown Theater, in August 1966, with Beverly Bentley as Lulu Myers.
Cannibals and Christians, Mailer’s third miscellany, was published by Dial on 29 August 1966. Beverly gave birth to Stephen McLeod Mailer, their second son, on 10 March 1966. Basil was the son of Louis and Moos.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
:::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::: Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Louis and Moos,

I haven’t written in ages. Please forgive me for not answering your fine letters, but this summer’s been unbelievable. I haven’t worked so hard in years. I got going at a great rate on a new novel and then just about the time I was half way through, everything in the scheme of things diverted me over to an old adaptation of The Deer Park, which I rewrote and changed from a five-hour play to a two-hour play. We did it up here in Provincetown in a theater Beverly helped to start (she is, by the way, a superb actress—woe is me—I’m not used to other talent in the family), and the play turned out well enough to be moved to New York. So we’re going to put it in on Off-Broadway this winter and if all goes well, it might be exciting, indeed. I have some hopes at any rate. As for the rest, all is well. Mother’s recovered completely from the operation, which proved, of course, not to be necessary—when will people finally realize that medicine exists first for the sake of doctors and their beastly hospitals. Cannibals and Christians came out and, to my surprise, received fairly good reviews. If Dad hasn’t taken care of it, I’m going to make certain a copy gets to you.
As for the boys, Michael is all box-office, prima donna, narcissistic, brilliant, spoiled, electric, frighteningly sexy, a complete self-starter, and Steve all attention and reaction and soft smiles and chuckles and fun. They’re going to make a great pair, knock on wood, as my mother would say.
As for the movie, An American Dream, don’t ask. An absolute disaster. My only consolation is that I had nothing to do with the makings of it, except for the tarty action of taking a large sum of money in sale from a large movie studio, for which I had no respect.

:::::::::::::::Give my best to Basil, Beverly sends love,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Sanford Sternlicht, an English professor at New York State University College at Oswego, wanted Mailer’s opinion of the film version.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}
:::::::::::::::565 Commercial Street
::::::::::::::: Provincetown, Massachusetts

September 24, 1966

Dear Sandy,

Just a line to tell you that we may be in Provincetown Christmas week, for we own a home here now, but if we’re in New York, we’ll look forward to seeing you. You write, “We have as not yet seen An American Dream and find it difficult to imagine it confined to the screen.” Yes indeed, Sir, when you see it, you may find it difficult to imagine.

:::::::::::::::Best,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

{{Aade-sm}}
{{hatnote|Mailer’s story “The Greatest Thing in the World” won Story magazine’s national college contest and was published there by Burnett in November 1941, marking the beginning of Mailer’s literary career. His undated letter (probably written in 1969) prefaces a selection from An American Dream describing the murder of Deborah by Rojack that was published in Burnett’s 1970 anthology, This is My Best: In the Third Quarter of the Century. Mailer’s letter is perhaps his most considered and perceptive comment on the novel.}}
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

{{quote box|align=center|fontsize=110%|width=60%|{{NMletter}}

Dear Whit,

Sometimes it seems useful to think of two kinds of novels—novels of manners, and modern explosive surrealistic novels in which the very notion of society, let alone manners, is bulldozed away in order to see what strange skeletons of fish and what buried treasure comes up in the ore. Out of my own work I suppose Why Are We in Vietnam? would most satisfy the latter category, and An American Dream might prove for some to be my most substantial attack on the problem of writing a novel of manners. They are hard novels to do well. Now that we are approaching the end of the seventh decade of the twentieth century they are becoming novels which are almost impossible to do well. The old totemistic force of manners, the old totemistic belief that breaching a manner inspired a curse has been all but lost in the avalanche of social deterioration which characterizes our era. Yet what can appear more attractive and sinister to us than a tea ceremony at the edge of a cliff. So I often think An American Dream is my best book. I tried for more in this novel than anywhere else and hence was living for a while with themes not easily accessible to literary criticism, not even to examination. The passage I choose now is not obligatorily the best thousand words in the work, but comes from the latter part of the first chapter and therefore offers few discomforts of orientation to the reader, and no demand on me for a synopsis of preceding events. Perhaps it may also serve to illumine the fine nerve of dread back of every good manner. Manner is the mandarin of mood, and in the shattering of every mood is an existential breath—does laughter or the murderous next ensue?

:::::::::::::::Yours,<br />
:::::::::::::::Norman Mailer
}}

{{Aad-letters}}

Talk:Norman Mailer: Works and Days/to do

2019-04-02T23:49:25Z

Namir Riptide: Claimed Family

* '''Entries for Mailer family members should be written and linked (see [[Index of Names/M|index]]).'''[[User:Namir Riptide|Namir Riptide]] ([[User talk:Namir Riptide|talk]]) 23:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
* Names in entries could be linked to Wikipedia and/or researched and annotated.
* Events in entries could be linked and/or clarified.
* Covers and images could be found and posted to entries.
* Categories for many images could be entered.
* Entries could be expanded, like [[AAD Expanded|''AAD'' Expanded]].

User:Namir Riptide

2019-03-31T15:16:58Z

Namir Riptide: Expound on personal

== Brief Bio ==
Welcome to Project Mailer. My name is Matthew, but I go by Namir. I am a business graduate fom MGA and and looking into getting the master’s certificate in Technical Writing and Digital Communication along with the Master’s of Sciences of Management. I live near Macon, Ga and am between jobs to focus on education.

=== Personal Expounding ===
I enjoy reading, writing, and positive money arithmatic. While I have a few poems and stories published in the school magazine, Fallline, I have much that has not seen an editing since their typing. My personal talent seems to be constructive critiquing as I have those that ask me to look over their art regularly.

I have over 10 years volunteering in creative situation solving, six years of Arts and Science education, and a cumulative year working retail. I have not had the opportunity to manage outside of the situation solving.

[[Catregory: Student Editors]]

Talk:Norman Mailer’s Letters on An American Dream, 1963–1969/to do

2019-03-31T14:57:55Z

Namir Riptide: Claiming notes/links

You might want to "claim" an item below (like I did with the intro) so we don't overlap in our posting responsibilities. We can all proofread and revise, though. Once we've completed the item, let's use <code><nowiki><s>. . .</s></nowiki></code> to strike it off.
* All pages should use <code><nowiki>{{aade-sm}}</nowiki></code><ref>{{tl|aade-sm}}</ref> somewhere on the page. This gives the appropriate categories and a banner about the page’s part on the project
* <s>Introduction needs to be posted (subpage)</s> —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 15:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
* 76 letters need to be posted<ref>See [[Bob Begiebing, April 19, 1989]] as a model. I have begun listing them and linking them off of the [[AAD:Letters]] page.</ref> [[User:JVbird|JVbird]] ([[User talk:JVbird|talk]]) (<s>I will take the first letter</s> —[[User:Grlucas|Grlucas]] ([[User talk:Grlucas|talk]]) 19:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC))
** all need to be listed and linked (continuing the table I started) from the main [[AAD:Letters|letters page]].
** use header for all: <code><nowiki>{{NMLetter}}</nowiki></code><ref>{{tl|NMletter}}</ref>
** use footer navbar for all: <code><nowiki>{{Aad-letters}}</nowiki></code><ref>{{tl|Aad-letters}}</ref>
** linked off of the AAD Letters page and the footer navbar
* Post timeline as subpage (Appendix III.doc)
* Post word count table as subpage (Appendix IV.doc)
* Add notes, links (PM and Wikipedia), and other research, like identifying important people, events, publications, etc. [[User:Namir Riptide|Namir]]

Talk:Norman Mailer’s Letters on An American Dream, 1963–1969

2019-03-30T19:52:33Z

Namir Riptide: Replied to Letter Format

User:Namir Riptide

2019-03-30T19:39:31Z

Namir Riptide: Added Category, Short bio

Welcome to Project Mailer. My name is Matthew, but I go by Namir. I am a business graduate fom MGA and and looking into getting the master’s certificate in Technical Writing and Digital Communication along with the Master’s of Sciences of Management. I live near Macon, Ga and am between jobs to focus on education.

[[Catregory: Student Editor]]