88
edits
Amylhester (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amylhester (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
==II. A Mystery wrapped in an Enigma== | ==II. A Mystery wrapped in an Enigma== | ||
The relative neglect of the novel is easily understandable. After 1,168 pages, | The relative neglect of the novel is easily understandable. After 1,168 pages, Norman Mailer terminates ''Harlot’s Ghost'' with a promise. He writes in bold capital letters at the end of the novel “TO BE CONTINUED.” {{efn|4. This isn’t the very end of the ''Harlot’s Ghost''. Mailer writes an “Author’s Note” which offers a defense of the novel’s claim for “verisimilitude” to historical reality and a list of nonfiction works about the CIA that informed the novel. This is followed by a list of CIA acronyms and individuals. This is an interesting and unconventional ending to a fictional spy novel. See ''Harlot’s Ghost'' pp. 1169–1187.}} There has been no sequel. To make matters worse, none of the conflicts of the novel, whether personal or political, are resolved, leaving readers to wonder about the fate of Harry Hubbard, the central character, and the other characters in the novel. This has obviously frustrated many readers. Given that Hubbard is a CIA agent caught in highly charged, real episodes in the history of the | ||
Norman Mailer terminates Harlot’s Ghost with a promise. He writes in bold | Cold War, and considering Mailer’s career-long ambition to tell the “truth of our times,” more information is expected. The novel ends with Hubbard in Moscow, after years of service to the CIA, looking for his godfather and career mentor, known as Harlot, who may have faked death and defected to the Soviets. In the last sentence of the novel, Hubbard poses a question: “Could I be ready to find my godfather and ask him, along with everything else I would ask: ‘Whom?’ In the immortal words of Vladimir Ilich Lenin, | ||
capital letters at the end of the novel “TO BE CONTINUED.” 4 There has | ‘Whom? Whom does all this benefit?’” {{efn|5. It is doubtful that Lenin ever said this. Although presented as a quotation it is, as far as I can ascertain—at best—a paraphrase. It sounds a little like the title of Lenin’s famous book that also presents a question, ''What is to be Done?'' It also seems similar to the question Kevin Costner, playing Jim Garrison, in Oliver Stone’s ''JFK'' asks about the Kennedy assassination—who benefits from this? See Lenin.}} It is puzzling that this question, so | ||
been no sequel. To make matters worse, none of the conflicts of the novel, | starkly posed, has not received an answer in the sequel promised at the end of the novel. | ||
whether personal or political, are resolved, leaving readers to wonder about | |||
the fate of Harry Hubbard, the central character, and the other characters in | |||
the novel. This has obviously frustrated many readers. Given that Hubbard | |||
is a CIA agent caught in highly charged, real episodes in the history of the | |||
Cold War, and considering Mailer’s career-long ambition to tell the “truth of | |||
our times,” more information is expected. The novel ends with Hubbard in | |||
Moscow, after years of service to the CIA, looking for his godfather and | |||
career mentor, known as Harlot, who may have faked death and defected to | |||
the Soviets. In the last sentence of the novel, Hubbard poses a question: | |||
“Could I be ready to find my godfather and ask him, along with everything | |||
else I would ask: ‘Whom?’ In the immortal words of Vladimir Ilich Lenin, | |||
‘Whom? Whom does all this benefit?’” 5 It is puzzling that this question, so | |||
starkly posed, has not received an answer in the sequel promised at the end | |||
of the novel. | |||
Mailer sets up grandiose expectations for the sequel by the incomplete | Mailer sets up grandiose expectations for the sequel by the incomplete | ||
Line 533: | Line 518: | ||
6. Conspiracy theories have been taken by several critics as the hallmark of postmodern historical representation. See Jameson, and McHale, among others. | 6. Conspiracy theories have been taken by several critics as the hallmark of postmodern historical representation. See Jameson, and McHale, among others. | ||
7. This phrase comes from Brecht’s polemic around the nature of realism with Georg Lukács | 7. This phrase comes from Brecht’s polemic around the nature of realism with Georg Lukács |
edits