The Mailer Review/Volume 1, 2007/“A Series of Tragicomedies”: Mailer’s Letters on The Deer Park, 1954–55: Difference between revisions

The Mailer Review/Volume 1, 2007/“A Series of Tragicomedies”: Mailer’s Letters on The Deer Park, 1954–55 (view source)

Revision as of 13:47, 9 February 2019

14,465 bytes added , 9 February 2019

Added more.

Grlucas

Bureaucrats, Administrators

10,115

edits

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 Dear Eiichi,<ref>NM’s Japanese translator, with whom he corresponded for over thirty years. NM explicated his writings more thoroughly to him than to anyone else. Yamanishi also translated the work of Charles Dickens, Erich Maria Remarque and Leon Trotsky.</ref>
-I’m very happy that you liked ''The Deer Park'', and as you say I think many people in America may be outraged when it appears. At least I hope so. The last paragraph of the book is I suppose my personal credo, and “the small trumpet of defiance”<ref>Eitel sends a message to Sergius at the very end of ''DP'': “‘So, do try, Sergius,’ he thought, ‘try for that other world, the real world, where orphans burn orphans and nothing is more difficult to discover than a simple fact. And with the pride of the artist, you must blow against the walls of every power that exists, the small trumpet of your defiance’” (374).</ref> is about all that’s left in expression in the United States. As I told you before I trust you to make whatever arrangements you consider the best under the circumstances, and if you wish to translate ''A Time To Love'' etc. first, it’s perfectly all right with me.
+I’m very happy that you liked ''The Deer Park'',<ref>NM sent a draft of the Rinehart ''DP'' to South Africa.</ref> and as you say I think many people in America may be outraged when it appears. At least I hope so. The last paragraph of the book is I suppose my personal credo, and “the small trumpet of defiance”<ref>Eitel sends a message to Sergius at the very end of ''[[55.4|DP]]'': “‘So, do try, Sergius,’ he thought, ‘try for that other world, the real world, where orphans burn orphans and nothing is more difficult to discover than a simple fact. And with the pride of the artist, you must blow against the walls of every power that exists, the small trumpet of your defiance’” (374).</ref> is about all that’s left in expression in the United States. As I told you before I trust you to make whatever arrangements you consider the best under the circumstances, and if you wish to translate ''A Time To Love'' etc. first, it’s perfectly all right with me.
 Very little has been happening here. I’ve been studying Spanish, and Adele has been painting, but the days have been pleasant because I’ve found ideas for two new novels, and a few months ago when I finished ''The Deer Park'' I felt so tired and empty that I thought I should never have an idea again. By the way, as we did with ''Barbary Shore'', I think it might be a help to you if I characterized the speech of the more important characters.
@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
 I write this with some hesitation because I’ve been a great meddler almost from birth, and often think I meddled too much with Harold Hecht on his abortive attempt to make ''Naked'' into a movie. But since Cy seems to feel that you’d be interested in these particular opinions, I’ll venture into something about which I know very little.
-By the newspapers (for whatever information or misinformation they give) I read that you’d signed Bob Mitchum for ''Naked''.<ref>Appearing in more than 100 films, including his much-lauded role as the mad preacher in ''The Night of the Hunter'' (1955), and as a psychopathic killer in ''Cape Fear'' (1962), Mitchum (1917–1999) was often portrayed as being more anti-establishment than he was. He did not appear in the film version of ''NAD''.</ref> Now, assuming it’s true, it occurred to me that you planned to have him play Croft, or possibly Red, or possibly Hearn. I have no quarrel with the latter two, and no quarrel with Mitchum whom I met once, and who seemed a good enough guy. But I’m a little worried about him playing Croft for two reasons. The most important is that Croft is a small man, and since a great deal of the dramatic action of the movie will revolve about his domination of the platoon (moral domination, spiritual domination, evil domination, what-you-will) I’m afraid that Mitchum by virtue of his height and obvious toughness will convey something quite opposite. He’ll be dominating the men just because he’s bigger and tougher than any of the others. The other reason concerns Mitchum as an actor. He’s often been excellent, but I’m afraid that he may have just a little too much pride about “walking” through a role. And I don’t know if he can convey the sort of fanaticism, overweening pride, the virtually religious intensity of a man like Croft. Of course, you probably know much more about this by now after shooting Davis Grubb’s<ref>Author of ''The Night of the Hunter'' (1953), Grubb (1919–1980) wrote several other novels and a collection of short fiction.</ref> book [''The Night of the Hunter''] where I understand Mitchum plays a mad preacher.
+By the newspapers (for whatever information or misinformation they give) I read that you’d signed Bob Mitchum for ''Naked''.<ref>Appearing in more than 100 films, including his much-lauded role as the mad preacher in ''The Night of the Hunter'' (1955), and as a psychopathic killer in ''Cape Fear'' (1962), Mitchum (1917–1999) was often portrayed as being more anti-establishment than he was. He did not appear in the film version of ''[[48.2|NAD]]''.</ref> Now, assuming it’s true, it occurred to me that you planned to have him play Croft, or possibly Red, or possibly Hearn. I have no quarrel with the latter two, and no quarrel with Mitchum whom I met once, and who seemed a good enough guy. But I’m a little worried about him playing Croft for two reasons. The most important is that Croft is a small man, and since a great deal of the dramatic action of the movie will revolve about his domination of the platoon (moral domination, spiritual domination, evil domination, what-you-will) I’m afraid that Mitchum by virtue of his height and obvious toughness will convey something quite opposite. He’ll be dominating the men just because he’s bigger and tougher than any of the others. The other reason concerns Mitchum as an actor. He’s often been excellent, but I’m afraid that he may have just a little too much pride about “walking” through a role. And I don’t know if he can convey the sort of fanaticism, overweening pride, the virtually religious intensity of a man like Croft. Of course, you probably know much more about this by now after shooting Davis Grubb’s<ref>Author of ''The Night of the Hunter'' (1953), Grubb (1919–1980) wrote several other novels and a collection of short fiction.</ref> book [''The Night of the Hunter''] where I understand Mitchum plays a mad preacher.
 The actor I thought of for Croft is Brando. I don’t know how you and Charles Laughton<ref>NM first met the great English stage and film star when Laughton (1899–1962) tried and failed to write a screenplay based on ''NAD''. Laughton made a score of memorable films from the 1930s through the 1960s, and was the first British citizen to win an Oscar for best actor, which he did for his starring role in the 1934 film, ''Henry VII''. He was also nominated for best actor for roles in ''Mutiny on the Bounty'' (1935) and ''Witness for the Prosecution'' (1957). Laughton was supposed to produce the film version of ''NAD'', but turned the job over to his longtime associate, Paul Gregory (b. 1920), who completed it in 1957.</ref> feel about him, but generally he’s impressed me more each time out. Many people of course mentioned him to me in the past as being ideal for Croft, but since he has so little physical resemblance, I rather shrugged it off. However, his performance in ''The Wild One''<ref>Marlon Brando (1924–2004) met NM in Hollywood and in the early 1950s attended some of his parties in his loft apartments in New York. Brando did not appear in the film version of ''NAD''. NM admired his acting and can do a fair imitation of him. NM praised Brando in his review of ''Last Tango in Paris'' (1972), which appeared in the ''New York Review of Books'' (May 17, 1973) and is reprinted in ''PAP'' 114–133.</ref> which contained and projected so much suppressed violence together with a certain “spirituality” made me feel that he could give quite a remarkable performance as Croft, and since he is a little man, little certainly next to Mitchum, Brando as Croft and Mitchum as either Red or Hearn would make for considerable dramatic excitement. Naturally, I have no idea if Brando’s available, if you two want him, if his salary would fit the budget, and a thousand other such things, but I throw it out for what it’s worth. If you’re at all interested, and haven’t seen The Wild One, I suggest you do.
@@ Line 135: / Line 135: @@
 Yours cordially,<br />Norman Mailer
+==121. To Basil Mailer==
+E. 55th Street, New York, NY<br />November 17, 1954
+Dear Basil,<ref>The son of NM’s South African uncle Louis Mailer and his wife, Moos, Basil became a filmmaker after studying at Oxford.</ref>
+Thanks a hell of a lot for your letter which I shall treasure among other things as being the only letter I’ll get from someone in movie-making which is dispassionate — the same cold objective family blood must run in both our veins. Also, for a moment of really wild hilarity when I read it over just now. It’s your reference to Harry Watt,<ref>A noted British film director,Watt (1906–1987) made documentaries in the 1930s and then with Ealing Studios, feature films in Africa and Australia.</ref> and how he’s like Eitel, and how Harry likes my books. And at that moment I realized, “My God, if Eitel really were a person, he would like my books too”. But I am delighted, seriously, that you liked ''The Deer Park'', and I agree with you about the faults. I’m not absolutely sure (once in awhile I think it was right to do it the way I did it) but generally I wish that I had written it all in third person,<ref>''DP'' begins in the first person with Sergius narrating, but NM was forced to switch, somewhat awkwardly, to the third in order to depict the love affair of Eitel and Esposito. All told, the narrative focus shifts thirty times, between their affair and O’Shaugnessy’s parallel affair with Lulu Meyers, and later to Marion Faye, back and forth from first to third person. Henry James would be appalled, but the fascinating love affair of Eitel and Esposito more than compensates for the split perspective.</ref> or autobiographically for each person, but the fact of the matter is that I didn’t choose the form, but rather, to be a little pompous about it, the form chose me. Which is merely to say, that I just couldn’t write the book in third person, try as I did for a period of three or four months. And on the other hand, I didn’t feel the imaginative reserves or whatever to enter each person’s mind. Particularly, this was true of Sergius. Every time I tried to write him in the third person, he became even more colorless and lifeless, and since whatever little affirmation the book has comes in his final statement as an artist, and since I couldn’t give it to him in third person (there’s nothing more difficult to make credible than a young man who is going to be a good writer) I had to take the tortured path of having him write in and out of things, so that at least, at the end, the reader might (I’m afraid they don’t) see the total of the book as Sergius’ book, and therefore believe that he will be a good writer. But the problem is really larger. I’ve noticed in other American writers as well as in myself that as we get older, there seems to be a progressive failure of nerve (which phrase I just used in a letter to your father [Louis] this morning). When I wrote ''Naked'' I had the kind of ignorant confidence which had me ready to try anything. If ''Naked'' had needed the Shah of Brat-mah-phur to make an entrance, I’d have run to the library, read fifty pages on Hindu philosophy, and come back ready to enter the Shah’s mind. Now that I know more, I have less confidence, I feel I understand the world less, and what I’ve discovered is that to write a really good book in third person, the one thing you must have is a world-view, be it right or wrong, simple or complex. Without that, it becomes almost impossible to feel your material, dominate it, what have you, and so the tendency is to retreat to the first person, because there you need no overall view of life, you only need one person’s perceptions. Since ''The Deer Park'' demanded entering other people’s minds, its cockeyed form developed. In a funny way, taking realistic account of my infirmities as a writer, the form is organic, it grew out of what I was capable of doing during these particular years.
+Anyway, I thought this might interest you. In a peculiar way, novel-writing reproduces in capsule the problems of making a good movie. The initial conception always has to deal with the productive realities, except that instead of a contract star whose acting is limited, and a producer whose eye is on the budget and schedule, and so forth, these external restrictions just sit in parts of the writer’s head.
+The [Tallulah] Bankhead story, alas.<ref>Although NM never met Bankhead (1902–1968), she or her press agent contrived the story that she had met him at a party and said, “Oh, hello, you’re the writer who doesn’t know how to spell fuck.” See ''CNM'' 116–117, for NM’s comment on their now-legendary imaginary encounter; he also discusses the 1960s rock group, The Fugs, who make an appearance in ''[[68.8|AON]]'' 132–146.</ref> It’s not true. I never met her. But I hear the story everywhere. Probably her press agent put it out. In irritation (because the story has me by implication shifting my feet and blushing to the ears) I spread a counter rumor. The new legend (all mine) has it that I retorted, “Yes, and you’re the young lady who doesn’t know how to.” This, too, has spread, although not as completely, but once or twice I have actually heard people say to me, “Your answer was wonderful.” Publicity marches on!
+I’ll be very happy to send you a copy when the damn things are finally printed. If you ever want to go to Hollywood again, (as indeed who doesn’t) you’ll have to change your last name.
+Commiserating with you on the Advertising Films, and hoping you get something of your own soon —
+Yours,<br />Norman
+==122. To Robert Lindner==
+E. 55th Street, New York, NY<br />November 29, 1954
+Dear Bob,<ref>Robert Lindner (1914–1956): A psychoanalyst and author of several works of popular psychology, including ''Rebel without a Cause: The Story of a Criminal Psychopath'' (1944) and ''Prescription for Rebellion'' (1952), Lindner became close friends with NM shortly after they began their correspondence. He was to NM in psychology what Jean Malaquais was in politics.</ref>
+Just a shortie to tell you what a good time we had, and to let you know that there’s no news on the big thing yet. I’ve submitted it [''The Deer Park''] simultaneously to Knopf and Random House<ref>After Rinehart rejected ''DP'', it was submitted to six publishing houses before it was accepted by the seventh, G. P. Putnam’s. NM liked the chief executive, Walter Minton, who reminded him of a general, and remained with Putnam’s
+through 1967. NM recounts the saga of ''DP' in “The Mind of an Outlaw” (''Esquire'', November 1959), which was reprinted as “The Last Draft of ''The Deer Park''” in ''AFM'' 228–267.</ref> (please don’t mention Knopf, nor for that matter that I’m in the act of changing publishers) and in a funny way I’m hoping that both houses don’t want the book with equal enthusiasm–, mainly because I had to use such pressure to make them both agree to the simultaneous business that it’s going to leave me with an enemy when I turn one down. I’ll let you know as soon as there is news. Maybe by next Monday.
+My inner life continues with much stimulation. I’ve gotten on to something in advertising which I believe is pretty big. It’s the old thing I discovered from Lipton’s<ref>Or tea, another name for marijuana, which NM smoked from the early 50s through the 60s before stopping in the 70s. During this period he compiled a 100,000-word journal, titled “Lipton’s,” which records his observations before, during, and after using the
+drug. The manuscript is in the [[Wikipedia:Harry Ransom Center|HRC]].</ref> [marijuana] that tremendous truth is to be found in the cliche if you crack open the shell. As a matter of fact I feel a little bit these days as if I’m a man from Mars. I walk around (even when I’m not taking Lipton’s) really listening and concentrating on what I hear. On exactly what is said. It’s amazing what one discovers if one only <u>listens</u>. And of course my great mental weakness in the past has been one of not concentrating. Now I feel as if everything I see, do, feel, and hear, is in italics.
+By the way, I’m a little pissed off at you for your attitude on Lipton’s. Mainly at the element of condescension, the feeling that you know me. Like Gide I scream) Please do not understand me too quickly. If our activities were reversed, I would be extremely interested in what you had to say, and what you thought about it. And, by the by, I don’t ascribe magic powers to Lipton’s. For anyone to get a radically new insight, some sort of magic or catalyst — if you will — is necessary, be it love, liquor, psychoanalysis, religion, or what have you, and this happens to be mine. You can of course be right, and I think no better, hear no better, etc., but why be sure ahead of time? Do you know everything? Am I that simple? There exists the danger in you, Bob, and I say this to a beloved friend, that you can end up as some sort of avant-garde pater-familias. One is either truly radical or merely a liberal with muscles.
+Anyway, when next I see you, I have three large subjects to expound on — 1) The artist and psychopathy, 2) Advertising and the modern state, 3) The illusion of psychoanalysis.<ref>All three are explored in ''AFM''.</ref> Where and when did the German lecturer come to birth in me. But do remind me because I really have so much to discuss.
+By the way, ''Dissent'' needs money. If you want to send them a few bucks, great, if you don’t, please do forget about it. I feel embarrassed mentioning it. Also, as usual we left half of ourselves behind. In this case, various items from Susie’s wardrobe. If Johnnie has run across them could we put you to the annoyance of mailing them?
+My love to Johnnie. I miss all of you.
+Con amor,<br />Norman
+==123. To Adeline Lubell Naiman==
+November 29, 1954
+Dear Lubby,<ref>Adeline Lubell Naiman (b. 1925): A college friend of NM’s sister, Barbara, at Radcliffe, Lubell was a junior editor at Little, Brown in 1946 when she heard about NM’s novel from his sister. In January 1946, even before he was discharged, she wrote to him asking to see a
+rough draft. In September, NM sent her 184 pages and she told her superiors it would be “the greatest novel to come out of WWII” (''MLT'' 102).</ref>
+You’re wrong. I’m not angry at all, and I’m not hurt — mainly because there was neither malice nor venom in your reactions. Only love. That’s true, and what more can one ask from one’s friends. As a matter of fact while I would quarrel here and there with some of your specific reactions, I think you hit the book well — at least it expresses very well what I feel about the book when I’m down on it. There are times when I think it’s very good, there are times when I think I failed completely. And when I do, I think less articulately along the lines you criticized.
+Your sexual squeamishness vis-a-vis ''The Deer Park'' did bother me. If you react that way then God what a host of others will. You know, Lubby, I think it’s my blind spot. Outside of licking feet or supping on shit there’s almost nothing in sex which shocks me, and I find it very hard to understand why others are shocked. So the end of the Teppis chapter strikes me as necessary, absolutely necessary. I’ll explain why when I see you. Parenthetically, and secretly, it has caused me such a set of out and out fights at Rinehart that I may have to leave there yet.<ref>NM had already crossed this bridge, but until he found a new publisher was selective in revealing the split.</ref>
+On Eitel, I don’t know if you got exactly what I was driving at. Which of course can be my fault. I didn’t want to show him so much as a lost genius — the book is not a tragedy, but a horror tale — as rather a relatively decent man who can no longer act in relatively decent ways. There just isn’t the room left to be decent and independent. If one wants to be decent, one must give up all thought of being an individual as well. Which is indeed what Eitel does. That’s what’s so horrible about America today. It doesn’t destroy most people, it just injects them with a touch of zombie.
+Anyway, as a favor to me, I wish you would reread the book when it comes out. Most of the people who’ve read the book twice like it better the second time. I think it’s because its groove is so peculiar that the reader fights it the first time.
+The form. Ah. It ended up being the only way I could write the thing. And indeed the only burn I did was in your reference to Angus. The manly Mr. Cameron<ref>Angus Cameron (1908–2002) was Editor-in-Chief at Little, Brown when Lubell worked there and was responsible for rejecting ''NAD''.</ref> with his pipe and his Stalinism and his homilies. Sweet Lubby, I could have told you years ago that when a writer is at the height of his powers and <u>confidence</u> he writes in third person, and the reasons are a little more interesting and extended than what Angus gives. But writers are frail, and often suffer no confidence in themselves, and what is one to do during those years — do no writing at all? One does the best one can, and writhes in the form that permits one to write. I spent three or four months trying to do ''The Deer Park'' in third person, and it just wouldn’t go.
+Your account of your own life made me sad. I won’t say more — indeed how could I since I really don’t understand you no matter how much I like you. But, Lubby.
+My own life goes fairly well, in fact better than in years. To my surprise I have learned that I love Adele very much, much more than I thought, and right now I’m more content being married than I ever was living with her. Sometimes I think that while women are the ones who desire marriage, it is men who can accept it most easily.
+I’d love to come to the party, but we’ve let too many things slide on the house, and anyway there’ll be small opportunity to talk. Can you ever ever get in? We have an extra bed now, and after Susy goes there’ll be beds for you and Lucky. Have a good party, and write soon, and know that nothing is changed. I mean it.
+Love,<br />Norman
 ==Notes==
@@ Line 140: / Line 202: @@
 {{Review|state=expanded}}
+{{DEFAULTSORT:Series of Tragicomedies}}
 [[Category:Mailer Review]]