User:Chelsey.brantley/sandbox: Difference between revisions

(13 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 5:

{{Byline|last=Westaway|first=Katharine|url=https://prmlr.us/mr07dick|abstract=Mailer ~~has been~~ . . . uniform edition~~.|note=This paper served . . . me to participate~~.}}

{{Byline|last=Westaway|first=Katharine|url=https://prmlr.us/mr07dick|abstract=One of the achievements of ''The Armies of the Night'' is that Norman Mailer is able to designate the marchers as patriots, a far cry from the criticism that labeled them “draft dodgers,” “communists,” and “rabble rousers.” Mailer aligns the march itself with America’s long tradition of ostensibly just and triumphant empire-building conflict.He describes theMarch on the Pentagon as a rite of passage and connects this to a collection of American moments that could be understood as similar rites of passage.uniform edition.}}

{{dc|dc=O|n a in weekend in October of 1967,}} tens of thousands of demonstrators

{{dc|dc=O|n a weekend in October of 1967,}} tens of thousands of demonstrators

amassed in Washington DC to protest the war in Vietnam. Intending ''The Armies of the Night: History as a Novel, The Novel as History'' (1968) to record and commemorate this eventful weekend, Norman Mailer enlarged the march on the Pentagon’s meaning, working as a novelist to make it more

than a four-day set of tremors in the nation’s capital. Some consider the

Line 68:

''National Guardian'', and ''Ramparts'') was critical of the war going back in some

cases to the 1950s when troops were first deployed to Vietnam.{{sfn|Streitmatter|2001|p=184}}

One of the most damning charges in the book is the brutality perpetrated

against the marchers, who were for the most part peacefully protesting; some

protestors were “clubbed until they were broken and bloody."{{sfn|Zaroulis and Sullivan|1984|p=138}} The abuse was amplified by the fact that it often went unreported.

For the reports of police violence, Mailer relies upon outside sources

because he had been arrested early in the demonstration before most of the

violence occurred. Yet he gains credibility when integrating outside witnesses

and reportage into a book that was mostly reported from his standpoint,{{pg|485|486}}

and these external sources may have lent more authority to the charge that

protesters were abused. For any journalist there was difficulty in covering

something as large as the march on the Pentagon “because of the extensive

terrain in question and the rapid movements of the protestors and soldiers."{{sfn|Small|1994|p=72}} Acting as a novelist-journalist, Mailer collects varied media accounts

of the march and weaves them into the narrative; here he features

one Leftist perspective of the march, identifying the witness as “Harvey

Mayes of the English Department at Hunter”:

<blockquote>One soldier spilled the water from his canteen on the ground in order to add to the discomfort of the female demonstrator at his feet. She cursed him—understandably, I think—and shifted her body. She lost her balance and her shoulder hit the rifle at the soldier’s side. He raised the rifle, and with its butt, came down hard on the girl’s leg. The girl tried to move back but was not fast enough to avoid the billy-club of a soldier in the second row of the troops. At least four times that soldier hit her with all his force.{{sfn|Mailer|1988|p=303}}</blockquote>

Mailer was obliged to portray the graphic scenes from the march which were missing in many media reports. Perhaps the stories of abuse were reported on more by the Left media because the Left journalists were among the protestors, down in the tussle, while mainstream reporters observed from a safe

distance, avoiding a potential encounter with violent police.

Mailer also gave accounts of “the [mainstream] press [who were], in the

aftermath, antagonistic to the March” and so included passages of an article from the ''New York Times'' which stated that “[i]t is difficult to report publicly the ugly and vulgar provocation of many of the militants. They spat on some

of the soldiers in the front line at the Pentagon and goaded them with the most vicious personal slander. . . . [M]any officials here are surprised that

there was not much more violence."{{sfn|Mailer|1988|p=313}} Notice that the ''Times'' does not mention any specific violence of the MPs. Numerous commentators condemned ''not'' the beatings meted out to the demonstrators, but the protest

itself; David Brinkley called it a “coarse, vulgar episode."{{sfn|Wells|1994|p=202–3}} However,

Maurice Isserman, one marcher, remembers the marchers for the most part as peaceful, remaining “pretty true to Gandhian principles."{{sfn|Isserman|2007|p=B15}}

In looking beyond Mailer’s collection of media accounts of the march, it{{pg|486|487}}

is clear that he wasn’t exaggerating the bias against anti-war activists. The

''New York Times'' reported that Robert McNamara felt his soldiers showed “restraint . . . under provocation,"{{sfn|Reston|1967|p=1}} and in one article the protesters

were referred to as “scum of the universe”{{sfn|Roberts|1967|p=45}}; another report called the demonstration “mass paranoia . . . elicit[ing] a great deal of foolishness."{{sfn|Baker|1967|p=45}} What the press wrote about the protestors was not always so disparaging, but rarely was the message of the marchers given much time, and this sort of mainstream coverage was the only information readily

available to the general public about the anti-war movement. Some of the first reports of the march on and the siege of the Pentagon were missing reports of police violence because the reporters went home late Saturday

night before the police began employing more militant tactics. But on Monday in another story of the march the ''New York Times'' still ignored “the bloody military sweep of early Sunday morning;” the ''Washington Post''’s Monday coverage was similar in that it “continued to emphasize the violence

of the protestors, not the defenders of the Pentagon."{{sfn|Small|1994|p=76, 78}} ''Time'' came out with its story a few days after the march on October 27 in which they marginalized the protestors as “left-wing radicals, hippies, acid

heads, and people with painted faces in bizarre costumes” while at the same time “applaud[ing] the government for its restraint."{{sfn|Small|1994|p=79–80}}

Mailer is unwilling to let the picture that the mainstream press drew of demonstrators become the only permanent record, and“he scolded the press for their lies, and their misrepresentation, for their guilt in creating a psychology over the last twenty years in the average American which made wars like Vietnam possible."{{sfn|Mailer|1988|p=93}} Mailer understands that the press is pivotal in a nation’s critique of its culture and policies, and he takes the press to task for their failure to cultivate an informed public. Eventually, Mailer’s ''Armies'' would stand with media accounts as a record of the event. Before ''Armies'' was published as a book in 1968, it appeared in periodicals (almost the entire issues of ''Harper’s'' and ''Commentary'' were given to this story). So

Mailer responded to the mass media’s “forest of inaccuracy” first in popular periodicals and then in book form. According to Dick Fontaine, a British filmmaker who was filming a documentary of Mailer over the weekend of

the march, “Norman remembered, with frightening accuracy, minutes and minutes, pages and pages, of the dialogues he was having with the others, let alone, of course, the brilliant descriptions of time, place and mood. . . . His

memory and interpretations of . . . [these events] are truly breathtaking.”{{pg|487|488}}

This speaks well of Mailer’s journalistic sensibilities and his hope to avoid a

forest of inaccuracies himself. To this end, it is important to recall that ''Armies''

won a Polk Award for excellence in journalism.

One of the achievements of ''Armies'' is that in it Mailer is able to designate the marchers as patriots, a far cry from the criticism that labeled them “draft

dodgers,” “communists,” and “rabble rousers.” In contrast, Mailer describes draft resisters as moral and courageous: “by handing in draft cards, these

young men were committing their future either to prison, emigration, frustration,

or at best, years where everything must be unknown, and that spoke

of a readiness to take moral leaps . . . [and a] faith in one’s ability to react with

grace."{{sfn|Mailer|1988|p=88}} Mailer recasts draft dodgers as draft resisters, those willing to risk their lives for peace rather than war. Furthermore, Mailer aligns the march itself with America’s long tradition of ostensibly just and triumphant empire-building conflict. He describes the March on the Pentagon as a rite of passage and connects this to a collection of American moments that could be understood as similar rites of passage, for “each generation

of Americans had forged their own rite, in the forest of the Alleghenies and the Adirondacks, at Valley Forge, at New Orleans in 1812, with Rogers and Clark or at Sutter’s Mill, at Gettysburg, the Alamo, the Klondike, the Argonne, Normandy, Pusan."{{sfn|Mailer|1988|p=308}} Such a comparison implies that without undergoing such crises the U.S. would not have become a sovereign republic, and so the March on the Pentagon is figured as another historic challenge for the country. This lofty rhetoric is meant to stir a reader’s patriotic sympathies, and Mailer is determined that his audience will see the marchers not as subversives but as patriots within the traditions of American democracy.

Mailer understood that “to affect consciousness is thus to shape power” and that his words were shaping people’s perception of the anti-war movement.

Even if his readers were persuaded to believe in a peaceful resolution to the Vietnam War, what would these readers do with this new consciousness,

a consciousness which was “itself a central ingredient in power”{{sfn|Miller|year|p=394}}? It is difficult to measure how readers enact their power, but we can watch how Mailer enacts his own. He undertakes his own civil disobedience, getting arrested in hopes of gaining publicity and offering credence to the

cause of the march, and he understands that his symbolic action must be captured by the press to multiply its effect. When writing the story of ''Armies'', Mailer tracks his own movement from critic to supporter to war protester to{{pg|488|489}}

prisoner of conscience, and we see that he “feels the claims of imagination

as urgently as the claims of action,"{{sfn|Behar|1970|p=262}} and so he must both examine and act.

''Armies'' represents, for Mailer, a test of his moral strength, an examination of whether Mailer could stand behind his highest moral principles. The story of ''Armies'' offers a way for Mailer to put his philosophy into action and to answer the question, Are you willing to put your life on the line? David Wyatt calls Mailer “a man so obsessed by courage,” which is a persistent theme in Mailer’s famous essay “The White Negro” (1957).{{sfn|Wyatt|2008|p=318}} In many ways ''Armies'' is tied to all of Mailer’s preceding writing. The most obvious connection is to ''Why Are We in Vietnam?'' (1967), but the themes and challenges of ''Armies'' are also indebted to ''Cannibals and Christians'' (1966) and ''The Presidential Papers'' (1963). These books variously tested the warrior in Mailer. Even his first book, ''The Naked and the Dead'' (1948), plays a role in the conception of ''Armies''. Mary Dearborn claims that ''Armies'' is a recapitulation of his first novel bringing up questions of “confrontation with and the reaction to authority."{{sfn|Dearborn|1999|p=244}} In ''Armies'', Mailer’s critique of structures of power and his own civil disobedience stands in clear defiance of authoritarian establishments, the same authoritarian establishments which thwarted characters in his previous texts. Mailer’s working out of his own demons in this

journey from author to activist was also meant to engage the hearts and minds of his readers in the important business of opening their eyes to the truth about the war in Vietnam. But it is not just a story about Mailer or the many Mailer characters; Mailer serves as an entry to the predicament of the war in Vietnam and a people’s various ways to protest it.

Mailer admits early in the story his growing belief that his own writing about the Vietnam War is not enough, that “no project had seemed to cost

him enough,” for his writing was one thing, but action was another. And by simply writing about the Vietnam War “he had been suffering more and more in the past few years from the private conviction that he was getting a

little soft, a hint curdled."{{sfn|Mailer|1988|p=70–1}} This may have served as a barb at

his audience of readers, among whom surely numbered many armchair revolutionaries.

To keep from getting soft and to resist being contented with a

writer’s perspective, he had to move into action himself. He had to actually

take part in the demonstrations, to be physically, not just ideologically in

opposition to the war, but we are not meant to concentrate solely on Mailer’s own struggle. Rather, from his own story of activism he may bring about in {{pg|489|490}}

his readers a new understanding that through the act of reading one becomes

aware, but not yet ''involved'' in a cause. Readers might appreciate that having their consciousness raised was not the same as protesting the war in

their own communities, not at all the same as stepping out into the streets

to form a human protest. One had to move from words to action, from page to protest.

Mailer asks serious questions of his readers, as Alfred Kazin points out, describing him as the first “leading American peacenik and resister addressing urgent questions to his ‘army’—Are we good enough? How can we overcome

the ‘mediocrity of the middle-class middle-aged masses of the Left?’

The general shoddiness of American standards just now? The tendency of authorities to lie?”{{sfn|Kazin|1968|p=BR 1}} Mailer artfully places such questions within the

framework of a narrative, addressed not only to fellow peaceniks but also to

a popular readership. It was important that this novel travel beyond the Left community, and it did. Indeed, ''Armies'' “reestablished Mailer with a wide audience"{{sfn|Whalen-Bridge|2003|p=217}} and won both the Pulitzer Prize for General

Nonfiction and the National Book Award. And it was gaining a popular audience

(a readership made up of more than those on the Left) for this topic

that was a challenge for Mailer: “walking the parapet between the intellectual

and the popular, and Mailer with his dream of making ‘a revolution in

the consciousness of our time’ is too ambitious to settle for a minority ‘art’

audience."{{sfn|Radford|1983|p=230}} Mailer was ambitious enough to take on the challenge

of telling a story that those within the anti-war movement would rally

around and those outside would give a fair hearing.

The novel, first in serial and then in book form, was meant to prod readers to action. In fact, it is specifically the expansiveness of the novel genre that Mailer finds useful toward a moral end. Mailer understood the great

potential of the genre. In one interview he contends that “art is to intensify, even, if necessary, to exacerbate, the moral consciousness of people. In particular,

I think the novel is at its best the most moral of the art forms because

it’s the most immediate, the most overbearing . . . It is the most

inescapable."{{sfn|Mailer|1959|p=384}} Did Mailer’s readers find his story

inescapable, and if so, were they catalyzed to protest the war themselves? The

answer cannot easily be quantified. We can, however, study the way in which Norman Mailer tried to activate readers. Critics picked up on this hunger

of Mailer’s to make change, his “extra-literary hunger for things to change

and change now, in palpable ways rather than in the imaginary, alternative{{pg|490|491}}

ways in which most artist-novelists deal."{{sfn|Gilman|1968|p=27}} This book is not only

a testimony of civil disobedience but also a story which aims to engender civil disobedience in the reader.

Wherever readers stood on the political continuum, ''Armies'' invites readers

to justify events in the book with their real lives; it allows for “[r]eading

history over the edge of text,” which is a combination of “close reading and

analysis that allow us to get ‘inside’ the narrative, while at the same time we

understand that the narrators and subjects of nonfiction . . . live ‘outside’ the

narrative as well."{{sfn|Lehman|1997|p=3}} This makes for an intense reading experience,

especially if the novelist like Mailer uses his skills to capture an already fascinating

or contentious event. One other factor that might have turned contemporary

readers into implicated readers was the timeliness of the book’s

release: the march was more than mere history it was a recent event when the book was published just seven months after the event—and the controversy

over Vietnam still raged on.

In a nonfiction novel such as ''Armies''the story can take on very real manifestations,

which could lead to political action on the part of readers. A

reader could take measure of his or her own (in)action regarding the war

and choose to act out against the war. Such action is difficult to trace, but in

the case of ''Armies'', Rubin claims the novel “became the Bible of the movement”{{sfn|Manso|1985|p=461}}; Dearborn suggests that “young leftists found it an astute

analysis and were impressed by the passion Mailer brought to the work."{{sfn|Dearborn|1999|p=246}} However, Michael Albert and Noam Chomsky, both major figures in

the anti-war movement, didn’t feel that it made much of an impact within

the movement. Albert recalls “honestly, I doubt if anyone I knew or virtually

anyone in the movement read it, even I didn’t. My guess would be it had [a]

very very modest impact . . . and virtually none inside the movement per

se.” While it is unclear whether it affected those within the movement, it is also difficult to tell how it affected readers just becoming acquainted with the

peace movement. Dearborn indicates that those outside the movement were

touched by the novel: “across the political spectrum, readers who watched

the student movement with varying degrees of approval or censure were

made to understand that what was going on in the streets . . . was a real phenomenon

that had to be taken extremely seriously."{{sfn|Dearborn|1999|p=246}} Furthermore, the

Pulitzer and National Book Award, which were because of the novel, are a

sort of establishment seals of approval—proof that it had reached middle

America. Contemporary reviewers were generous with their praise. The

''London Magazine'' named him “the best living writer of English prose."{{sfn|Bergonzi|1968|p=100}} Others saw ''Armies'' saw as a monumental book, “a literary act

whose significance is certain to grow."{{sfn|Gilman|1968|p=27}} One way the book could

live on was through the reactions of its readers.

Not only was ''Armies'' about politics, but the novel stood as a statement of

the relationship between literature and politics. To ignore politics, for the novelist, is an error. Mailer must speak politically, for “the separation of the

literary and political horizons is a mute acceptance of the structures through

which power is exercised."{{sfn|Schueller|1992|p=127}} Whether his novel convinced one

single person to join the anti-war cause or not, it was a necessary testimony. Simply by representing the happenings of the anti-war movement in narrative

form, Mailer made a new current in American politics. Perhaps Mailer

understood the inescapability of politics, for as an activist author he could

not “dissociate himself from the social contexts through which he speaks."{{sfn|Schueller|1992|p=125}} His story would be null without its complex entanglement with real political struggle.

A contemporary review of ''Armies'' in ''The Nation'' called it “a permanent contribution to our literature—a unique testimony to literary responsiveness and responsibility”{{sfn|Trachtenberg|1968|p=702}}; certainly, Mailer was responding to

important political phenomena that had not received sustained literary attention.

His writing about the rifts within the tumultuous New Left, the division

between Americans for and against the war, and the response of

government and the press to the anti-war movement did delineate important

political issues that needed to be aired. Mailer did not shy away from critique of the government or the media or of himself in order to tell the story of those in the anti-war movement.

Mailer’s novel represents a catalyst for social change through its introduction

of an anti-war subculture to a popular audience. Mailer speaks candidly

about his intentions: “I was trying to bring a consciousness to America

about the war in Vietnam. . . . I think the effect of the book was to make resistance to the war in Vietnam a little more human to people who were still supporting the war. So, yes, I think the book did have a political effect. Maybe it tended to strengthen the side opposed to the war in Vietnam."{{sfn|Mailer|1982|p=220}} Jason Epstein recalls ''Armies'' as a book “meant to rally or produce a political reaction”{{sfn|Manso|1985|p=470}}; a strong argument can be made for the fact that Mailer meant to catalyze his readers. He attested to the disorganization

and dissension within the anti-war camp, but more vigorously{{pg|492|493}}

showed the misrepresentation, defamation, and even the physical denigration

of the activists. His argument for peace in Vietnam gained stature because he was a bona fide activist for the cause, facing arrest to further the significance of his protest. He was there, present at the march, and authenticated his action by telling the story of the march. ''The Armies of the Night'' exists as a testament to the anti-war movement and to the efficacy of civil disobedience.

===Citations===

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 {{MR04}}
 <!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
-{{Byline|last=Westaway|first=Katharine|url=https://prmlr.us/mr07dick|abstract=Mailer has been . . . uniform edition.|note=This paper served . . . me to participate.}}
+{{Byline|last=Westaway|first=Katharine|url=https://prmlr.us/mr07dick|abstract=One of the achievements of ''The Armies of the Night'' is that Norman Mailer is able to designate the marchers as patriots, a far cry from the criticism that labeled them “draft dodgers,” “communists,” and “rabble rousers.” Mailer aligns the march itself with America’s long tradition of ostensibly just and triumphant empire-building conflict.He describes theMarch on the Pentagon as a rite of passage and connects this to a collection of American moments that could be understood as similar rites of passage.uniform edition.}}
-{{dc|dc=O|n a in weekend in October of 1967,}} tens of thousands of demonstrators
+{{dc|dc=O|n a weekend in October of 1967,}} tens of thousands of demonstrators
 amassed in Washington DC to protest the war in Vietnam. Intending ''The Armies of the Night: History as a Novel, The Novel as History'' (1968) to record and commemorate this eventful weekend, Norman Mailer enlarged the march on the Pentagon’s meaning, working as a novelist to make it more
 than a four-day set of tremors in the nation’s capital. Some consider the
@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 ''National Guardian'', and ''Ramparts'') was critical of the war going back in some
 cases to the 1950s when troops were first deployed to Vietnam.{{sfn|Streitmatter|2001|p=184}}
+One of the most damning charges in the book is the brutality perpetrated
+against the marchers, who were for the most part peacefully protesting; some
+protestors were “clubbed until they were broken and bloody."{{sfn|Zaroulis and Sullivan|1984|p=138}} The abuse was amplified by the fact that it often went unreported.
+For the reports of police violence, Mailer relies upon outside sources
+because he had been arrested early in the demonstration before most of the
+violence occurred. Yet he gains credibility when integrating outside witnesses
+and reportage into a book that was mostly reported from his standpoint,{{pg|485|486}}
+and these external sources may have lent more authority to the charge that
+protesters were abused. For any journalist there was difficulty in covering
+something as large as the march on the Pentagon “because of the extensive
+terrain in question and the rapid movements of the protestors and soldiers."{{sfn|Small|1994|p=72}} Acting as a novelist-journalist, Mailer collects varied media accounts
+of the march and weaves them into the narrative; here he features
+one Leftist perspective of the march, identifying the witness as “Harvey
+Mayes of the English Department at Hunter”:
+<blockquote>One soldier spilled the water from his canteen on the ground in order to add to the discomfort of the female demonstrator at his feet. She cursed him—understandably, I think—and shifted her body. She lost her balance and her shoulder hit the rifle at the soldier’s side. He raised the rifle, and with its butt, came down hard on the girl’s leg. The girl tried to move back but was not fast enough to avoid the billy-club of a soldier in the second row of the troops. At least four times that soldier hit her with all his force.{{sfn|Mailer|1988|p=303}}</blockquote>
+Mailer was obliged to portray the graphic scenes from the march which were missing in many media reports. Perhaps the stories of abuse were reported on more by the Left media because the Left journalists were among the protestors, down in the tussle, while mainstream reporters observed from a safe
+distance, avoiding a potential encounter with violent police.
+Mailer also gave accounts of “the [mainstream] press [who were], in the
+aftermath, antagonistic to the March” and so included passages of an article from the ''New York Times'' which stated that “[i]t is difficult to report publicly the ugly and vulgar provocation of many of the militants. They spat on some
+of the soldiers in the front line at the Pentagon and goaded them with the most vicious personal slander. . . . [M]any officials here are surprised that
+there was not much more violence."{{sfn|Mailer|1988|p=313}} Notice that the ''Times'' does not mention any specific violence of the MPs. Numerous commentators condemned ''not'' the beatings meted out to the demonstrators, but the protest
+itself; David Brinkley called it a “coarse, vulgar episode."{{sfn|Wells|1994|p=202–3}} However,
+Maurice Isserman, one marcher, remembers the marchers for the most part as peaceful, remaining “pretty true to Gandhian principles."{{sfn|Isserman|2007|p=B15}}
+In looking beyond Mailer’s collection of media accounts of the march, it{{pg|486|487}}
+is clear that he wasn’t exaggerating the bias against anti-war activists. The
+''New York Times'' reported that Robert McNamara felt his soldiers showed “restraint . . . under provocation,"{{sfn|Reston|1967|p=1}} and in one article the protesters
+were referred to as “scum of the universe”{{sfn|Roberts|1967|p=45}}; another report called the demonstration “mass paranoia . . . elicit[ing] a great deal of foolishness."{{sfn|Baker|1967|p=45}} What the press wrote about the protestors was not always so disparaging, but rarely was the message of the marchers given much time, and this sort of mainstream coverage was the only information readily
+available to the general public about the anti-war movement. Some of the first reports of the march on and the siege of the Pentagon were missing reports of police violence because the reporters went home late Saturday
+night before the police began employing more militant tactics. But on Monday in another story of the march the ''New York Times'' still ignored “the bloody military sweep of early Sunday morning;” the ''Washington Post''’s Monday coverage was similar in that it “continued to emphasize the violence
+of the protestors, not the defenders of the Pentagon."{{sfn|Small|1994|p=76, 78}} ''Time'' came out with its story a few days after the march on October 27 in which they marginalized the protestors as “left-wing radicals, hippies, acid
+heads, and people with painted faces in bizarre costumes” while at the same time “applaud[ing] the government for its restraint."{{sfn|Small|1994|p=79–80}}
+Mailer is unwilling to let the picture that the mainstream press drew of demonstrators become the only permanent record, and“he scolded the press for their lies, and their misrepresentation, for their guilt in creating a psychology over the last twenty years in the average American which made wars like Vietnam possible."{{sfn|Mailer|1988|p=93}} Mailer understands that the press is pivotal in a nation’s critique of its culture and policies, and he takes the press to task for their failure to cultivate an informed public. Eventually, Mailer’s ''Armies'' would stand with media accounts as a record of the event. Before ''Armies'' was published as a book in 1968, it appeared in periodicals (almost the entire issues of ''Harper’s'' and ''Commentary'' were given to this story). So
+Mailer responded to the mass media’s “forest of inaccuracy” first in popular periodicals and then in book form. According to Dick Fontaine, a British filmmaker who was filming a documentary of Mailer over the weekend of
+the march, “Norman remembered, with frightening accuracy, minutes and minutes, pages and pages, of the dialogues he was having with the others, let alone, of course, the brilliant descriptions of time, place and mood. . . . His
+memory and interpretations of . . . [these events] are truly breathtaking.”{{pg|487|488}}
+This speaks well of Mailer’s journalistic sensibilities and his hope to avoid a
+forest of inaccuracies himself. To this end, it is important to recall that ''Armies''
+won a Polk Award for excellence in journalism.
+One of the achievements of ''Armies'' is that in it Mailer is able to designate the marchers as patriots, a far cry from the criticism that labeled them “draft
+dodgers,” “communists,” and “rabble rousers.” In contrast, Mailer describes draft resisters as moral and courageous: “by handing in draft cards, these
+young men were committing their future either to prison, emigration, frustration,
+or at best, years where everything must be unknown, and that spoke
+of a readiness to take moral leaps . . . [and a] faith in one’s ability to react with
+grace."{{sfn|Mailer|1988|p=88}} Mailer recasts draft dodgers as draft resisters, those willing to risk their lives for peace rather than war. Furthermore, Mailer aligns the march itself with America’s long tradition of ostensibly just and triumphant empire-building conflict. He describes the March on the Pentagon as a rite of passage and connects this to a collection of American moments that could be understood as similar rites of passage, for “each generation
+of Americans had forged their own rite, in the forest of the Alleghenies and the Adirondacks, at Valley Forge, at New Orleans in 1812, with Rogers and Clark or at Sutter’s Mill, at Gettysburg, the Alamo, the Klondike, the Argonne, Normandy, Pusan."{{sfn|Mailer|1988|p=308}} Such a comparison implies that without undergoing such crises the U.S. would not have become a sovereign republic, and so the March on the Pentagon is figured as another historic challenge for the country. This lofty rhetoric is meant to stir a reader’s patriotic sympathies, and Mailer is determined that his audience will see the marchers not as subversives but as patriots within the traditions of American democracy.
+Mailer understood that “to affect consciousness is thus to shape power” and that his words were shaping people’s perception of the anti-war movement.
+Even if his readers were persuaded to believe in a peaceful resolution to the Vietnam War, what would these readers do with this new consciousness,
+a consciousness which was “itself a central ingredient in power”{{sfn|Miller|year|p=394}}? It is difficult to measure how readers enact their power, but we can watch how Mailer enacts his own. He undertakes his own civil disobedience, getting arrested in hopes of gaining publicity and offering credence to the
+cause of the march, and he understands that his symbolic action must be captured by the press to multiply its effect. When writing the story of ''Armies'', Mailer tracks his own movement from critic to supporter to war protester to{{pg|488|489}}
+prisoner of conscience, and we see that he “feels the claims of imagination
+as urgently as the claims of action,"{{sfn|Behar|1970|p=262}} and so he must both examine and act.
+''Armies'' represents, for Mailer, a test of his moral strength, an examination of whether Mailer could stand behind his highest moral principles. The story of ''Armies'' offers a way for Mailer to put his philosophy into action and to answer the question, Are you willing to put your life on the line? David Wyatt calls Mailer “a man so obsessed by courage,” which is a persistent theme in Mailer’s famous essay “The White Negro” (1957).{{sfn|Wyatt|2008|p=318}} In many ways ''Armies'' is tied to all of Mailer’s preceding writing. The most obvious connection is to ''Why Are We in Vietnam?'' (1967), but the themes and challenges of ''Armies'' are also indebted to ''Cannibals and Christians'' (1966) and ''The Presidential Papers'' (1963). These books variously tested the warrior in Mailer. Even his first book, ''The Naked and the Dead'' (1948), plays a role in the conception of ''Armies''. Mary Dearborn claims that ''Armies'' is a recapitulation of his first novel bringing up questions of “confrontation with and the reaction to authority."{{sfn|Dearborn|1999|p=244}} In ''Armies'', Mailer’s critique of structures of power and his own civil disobedience stands in clear defiance of authoritarian establishments, the same authoritarian establishments which thwarted characters in his previous texts. Mailer’s working out of his own demons in this
+journey from author to activist was also meant to engage the hearts and minds of his readers in the important business of opening their eyes to the truth about the war in Vietnam. But it is not just a story about Mailer or the many Mailer characters; Mailer serves as an entry to the predicament of the war in Vietnam and a people’s various ways to protest it.
+Mailer admits early in the story his growing belief that his own writing about the Vietnam War is not enough, that “no project had seemed to cost
+him enough,” for his writing was one thing, but action was another. And by simply writing about the Vietnam War “he had been suffering more and more in the past few years from the private conviction that he was getting a
+little soft, a hint curdled."{{sfn|Mailer|1988|p=70–1}} This may have served as a barb at
+his audience of readers, among whom surely numbered many armchair revolutionaries.
+To keep from getting soft and to resist being contented with a
+writer’s perspective, he had to move into action himself. He had to actually
+take part in the demonstrations, to be physically, not just ideologically in
+opposition to the war, but we are not meant to concentrate solely on Mailer’s own struggle. Rather, from his own story of activism he may bring about in {{pg|489|490}}
+his readers a new understanding that through the act of reading one becomes
+aware, but not yet ''involved'' in a cause. Readers might appreciate that having their consciousness raised was not the same as protesting the war in
+their own communities, not at all the same as stepping out into the streets
+to form a human protest. One had to move from words to action, from page to protest.
+Mailer asks serious questions of his readers, as Alfred Kazin points out, describing him as the first “leading American peacenik and resister addressing urgent questions to his ‘army’—Are we good enough? How can we overcome
+the ‘mediocrity of the middle-class middle-aged masses of the Left?’
+The general shoddiness of American standards just now? The tendency of authorities to lie?”{{sfn|Kazin|1968|p=BR 1}} Mailer artfully places such questions within the
+framework of a narrative, addressed not only to fellow peaceniks but also to
+a popular readership. It was important that this novel travel beyond the Left community, and it did. Indeed, ''Armies'' “reestablished Mailer with a wide audience"{{sfn|Whalen-Bridge|2003|p=217}} and won both the Pulitzer Prize for General
+Nonfiction and the National Book Award. And it was gaining a popular audience
+(a readership made up of more than those on the Left) for this topic
+that was a challenge for Mailer: “walking the parapet between the intellectual
+and the popular, and Mailer with his dream of making ‘a revolution in
+the consciousness of our time’ is too ambitious to settle for a minority ‘art’
+audience."{{sfn|Radford|1983|p=230}} Mailer was ambitious enough to take on the challenge
+of telling a story that those within the anti-war movement would rally
+around and those outside would give a fair hearing.
+The novel, first in serial and then in book form, was meant to prod readers to action. In fact, it is specifically the expansiveness of the novel genre that Mailer finds useful toward a moral end. Mailer understood the great
+potential of the genre. In one interview he contends that “art is to intensify, even, if necessary, to exacerbate, the moral consciousness of people. In particular,
+I think the novel is at its best the most moral of the art forms because
+it’s the most immediate, the most overbearing . . . It is the most
+inescapable."{{sfn|Mailer|1959|p=384}} Did Mailer’s readers find his story
+inescapable, and if so, were they catalyzed to protest the war themselves? The
+answer cannot easily be quantified. We can, however, study the way in which Norman Mailer tried to activate readers. Critics picked up on this hunger
+of Mailer’s to make change, his “extra-literary hunger for things to change
+and change now, in palpable ways rather than in the imaginary, alternative{{pg|490|491}}
+ways in which most artist-novelists deal."{{sfn|Gilman|1968|p=27}} This book is not only
+a testimony of civil disobedience but also a story which aims to engender civil disobedience in the reader.
+Wherever readers stood on the political continuum, ''Armies'' invites readers
+to justify events in the book with their real lives; it allows for “[r]eading
+history over the edge of text,” which is a combination of “close reading and
+analysis that allow us to get ‘inside’ the narrative, while at the same time we
+understand that the narrators and subjects of nonfiction . . . live ‘outside’ the
+narrative as well."{{sfn|Lehman|1997|p=3}} This makes for an intense reading experience,
+especially if the novelist like Mailer uses his skills to capture an already fascinating
+or contentious event. One other factor that might have turned contemporary
+readers into implicated readers was the timeliness of the book’s
+release: the march was more than mere history it was a recent event when the book was published just seven months after the event—and the controversy
+over Vietnam still raged on.
+In a nonfiction novel such as ''Armies''the story can take on very real manifestations,
+which could lead to political action on the part of readers. A
+reader could take measure of his or her own (in)action regarding the war
+and choose to act out against the war. Such action is difficult to trace, but in
+the case of ''Armies'', Rubin claims the novel “became the Bible of the movement”{{sfn|Manso|1985|p=461}}; Dearborn suggests that “young leftists found it an astute
+analysis and were impressed by the passion Mailer brought to the work."{{sfn|Dearborn|1999|p=246}} However, Michael Albert and Noam Chomsky, both major figures in
+the anti-war movement, didn’t feel that it made much of an impact within
+the movement. Albert recalls “honestly, I doubt if anyone I knew or virtually
+anyone in the movement read it, even I didn’t. My guess would be it had [a]
+very very modest impact . . . and virtually none inside the movement per
+se.” While it is unclear whether it affected those within the movement, it is also difficult to tell how it affected readers just becoming acquainted with the
+peace movement. Dearborn indicates that those outside the movement were
+touched by the novel: “across the political spectrum, readers who watched
+the student movement with varying degrees of approval or censure were
+made to understand that what was going on in the streets . . . was a real phenomenon
+that had to be taken extremely seriously."{{sfn|Dearborn|1999|p=246}} Furthermore, the
+Pulitzer and National Book Award, which were because of the novel, are a
+sort of establishment seals of approval—proof that it had reached middle
+America. Contemporary reviewers were generous with their praise. The
+{{pg|491|492}}
+''London Magazine'' named him “the best living writer of English prose."{{sfn|Bergonzi|1968|p=100}} Others saw ''Armies'' saw as a monumental book, “a literary act
+whose significance is certain to grow."{{sfn|Gilman|1968|p=27}} One way the book could
+live on was through the reactions of its readers.
+Not only was ''Armies'' about politics, but the novel stood as a statement of
+the relationship between literature and politics. To ignore politics, for the novelist, is an error. Mailer must speak politically, for “the separation of the
+literary and political horizons is a mute acceptance of the structures through
+which power is exercised."{{sfn|Schueller|1992|p=127}} Whether his novel convinced one
+single person to join the anti-war cause or not, it was a necessary testimony. Simply by representing the happenings of the anti-war movement in narrative
+form, Mailer made a new current in American politics. Perhaps Mailer
+understood the inescapability of politics, for as an activist author he could
+not “dissociate himself from the social contexts through which he speaks."{{sfn|Schueller|1992|p=125}} His story would be null without its complex entanglement with real political struggle.
+A contemporary review of ''Armies'' in ''The Nation'' called it “a permanent contribution to our literature—a unique testimony to literary responsiveness and responsibility”{{sfn|Trachtenberg|1968|p=702}}; certainly, Mailer was responding to
+important political phenomena that had not received sustained literary attention.
+His writing about the rifts within the tumultuous New Left, the division
+between Americans for and against the war, and the response of
+government and the press to the anti-war movement did delineate important
+political issues that needed to be aired. Mailer did not shy away from critique of the government or the media or of himself in order to tell the story of those in the anti-war movement.
+Mailer’s novel represents a catalyst for social change through its introduction
+of an anti-war subculture to a popular audience. Mailer speaks candidly
+about his intentions: “I was trying to bring a consciousness to America
+about the war in Vietnam. . . . I think the effect of the book was to make resistance to the war in Vietnam a little more human to people who were still supporting the war. So, yes, I think the book did have a political effect. Maybe it tended to strengthen the side opposed to the war in Vietnam."{{sfn|Mailer|1982|p=220}} Jason Epstein recalls ''Armies'' as a book “meant to rally or produce a political reaction”{{sfn|Manso|1985|p=470}}; a strong argument can be made for the fact that Mailer meant to catalyze his readers. He attested to the disorganization
+and dissension within the anti-war camp, but more vigorously{{pg|492|493}}
+showed the misrepresentation, defamation, and even the physical denigration
+of the activists. His argument for peace in Vietnam gained stature because he was a bona fide activist for the cause, facing arrest to further the significance of his protest. He was there, present at the march, and authenticated his action by telling the story of the march. ''The Armies of the Night'' exists as a testament to the anti-war movement and to the efficacy of civil disobedience.
 ===Citations===