88
edits
Amylhester (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amylhester (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
would situate him as part of a literary tradition that includes authors he admires most: Balzac, Tolstoy, and Zola, who also strove to tell the truth of their times. However, to invent a character revealing the meaning behind historical events brings to mind the superficiality of conspiracy theories, one form of historical fiction that seems to be growing in popularity (sometimes | would situate him as part of a literary tradition that includes authors he admires most: Balzac, Tolstoy, and Zola, who also strove to tell the truth of their times. However, to invent a character revealing the meaning behind historical events brings to mind the superficiality of conspiracy theories, one form of historical fiction that seems to be growing in popularity (sometimes | ||
interestingly in literature but tragically in public discourse). | interestingly in literature but tragically in public discourse). | ||
{{efn|6. Conspiracy theories have been taken by several critics as the hallmark of postmodern historical representation. See Jameson, and McHale, among others.}} | {{efn|6. Conspiracy theories have been taken by several critics as the hallmark of postmodern historical representation. See Jameson, and McHale, among others.}} On the other hand, Bertolt Brecht’s goal for writers that they should “render reality to men | ||
in a form they can master” (Aesthetics and Politics 81){{efn|7. This phrase comes from Brecht’s polemic around the ''nature'' of realism with Georg Lukács “Against Lukács” in ''Aesthetics and Politics'' (NY: Verso, 1978 p. 81).}} seems the prerequisite for any politically useful fiction and sets up relevant criteria for evaluating ''Harlot’s Ghost''. Therefore, Mailer’s unwillingness or inability to write an ending or sequel to ''Harlot’s Ghost'' will be considered in light of such Brechtian goals. This paper will show that the novel’s lack of resolution is best understood not as a personal failure, or as symptomatic of the impossibility of political writing at the present time, but rather represents a new and valuable strategy in Mailer’s efforts to present unpleasant realities of American society. It should be noted, in passing, that my argument is not based on Mailer’s conscious ''intention'', which cannot be definitively ascertained, but rather on the logic of the novel in relation to its historical and political subject matter and Mailer’s stated objectives. These objectives are derived from | |||
Mailer’s career-long writings, interviews and public pronouncements and, in my view, form a clear and definable worldview and approach to human existence and human freedom. | |||
With a few notable exceptions, this novel hasn’t fared well among critics | With a few notable exceptions, this novel hasn’t fared well among critics | ||
Line 511: | Line 504: | ||
8. Mary Dearborn in her recent biography of Norman Mailer takes this view of the work. | 8. Mary Dearborn in her recent biography of Norman Mailer takes this view of the work. | ||
She writes, “To Hubbard, America is a country that ‘had God’s sanction’ and he is privileged and honored to serve it” and concludes from her reading of the novel that “Norman’s admiration for the CIA, and his approval of what he takes to be its patrician ways, | She writes, “To Hubbard, America is a country that ‘had God’s sanction’ and he is privileged and honored to serve it” and concludes from her reading of the novel that “Norman’s admiration for the CIA, and his approval of what he takes to be its patrician ways, |
edits