Jump to content

The Mailer Review/Volume 1, 2007/Five Notes Toward a Reassessment of Norman Mailer: Difference between revisions

The Mailer Review/Volume 1, 2007/Five Notes Toward a Reassessment of Norman Mailer (view source)

Revision as of 10:06, 7 July 2020

149 bytes added ,  7 July 2020
m
Move tweaks.
m (Updated byline box.)
m (Move tweaks.)
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="font-size:22px;">{{BASEPAGENAME}}/</span>{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}
{{MR01}}
{{MR01}}
{{Byline|last=Middlebrook|first=Jonathan|abstract=A reconsideration of [[Norman Mailer]] and his work against the backdrop of Middlebrook’s book, ''Mailer and the Times of His Time''. San Francisco: Bay Books, 1976.|https://prmlr.us/mr07midd}}
{{Byline|last=Middlebrook|first=Jonathan|abstract=A reconsideration of [[Norman Mailer]] and his work against the backdrop of Middlebrook’s book, ''Mailer and the Times of His Time''. San Francisco: Bay Books, 1976.|url=https://prmlr.us/mr07midd}}


{{cquote|I had better never see a book, than to be warped by its attraction clean out of my own orbit.|author=Emerson}}
{{cquote|I had better never see a book, than to be warped by its attraction clean out of my own orbit.|author=Emerson}}


Note #1–'''Reassessment''' — my assignment had a hook in it, which a smarter fish would have seen at first flyover. ''Reassessment'' suggests either apostasy or conversion, and neither condition is mine. Over the last fifty years or so my appreciation for Mailer has developed, from adolescent belief (''[[The Naked and the Dead]]'' was soldiering) and puzzlement (why so little shooting, so much mountain-climbing & what I then called ''girlishness'' & no ''nakedness''?) — my appreciation developed from that ''naïveté'' to a more advanced one, a tenure-able understanding that Shelley’s Mt. Blanc was avatar of ''N&D''’s Mt. Anaka, and then appreciation became my current, somewhat uneasy sense that Norman Mailer is one of Emerson’s two literary desiderata: “Time and nature yield us many gifts, but not yet the timely man, the new religion, the reconciler whom all things await” (“The Poet”). NM as descendant of Walt Whitman, and Emerson is their prophet.
Note #1–'''Reassessment''' — my assignment had a hook in it, which a smarter fish would have seen at first flyover. ''Reassessment'' suggests either apostasy or conversion, and neither condition is mine. Over the last fifty years or so my appreciation for Mailer has developed, from adolescent belief (''[[The Naked and the Dead]]'' was soldiering) and puzzlement (why so little shooting, so much mountain-climbing & what I then called ''girlishness'' & no ''nakedness''?) — my appreciation developed from that ''naïveté'' to a more advanced one, a tenure-able understanding that Shelley’s Mt. Blanc was avatar of ''N&D''{{'s}} Mt. Anaka, and then appreciation became my current, somewhat uneasy sense that Norman Mailer is one of Emerson’s two literary desiderata: “Time and nature yield us many gifts, but not yet the timely man, the new religion, the reconciler whom all things await” (“The Poet”). NM as descendant of Walt Whitman, and Emerson is their prophet.


–& I may have missed him — see Note #5.
–& I may have missed him — see Note #5.


Note # 2–'''Norman Mailer''' — He has almost become only a name, but not yet. As of April 2007, he remains on our side, a working writer, and for many people a kind acquaintance, for some a poker-playing friend, and for some others, still a doughty enemy. But he’s 84; and soon entry to the book of <u>Shook-His-Hand</u> will be closed, and the strike-throughs on the roll (for example, <s>''Robert Lucid''</s>) will not be replaced by new, glad hands. — That fact suggests one reason for ''The Mailer Review'', which will become a record of the ''trying out'' (I trust NM will like the Melville-inflected whaling term) of his work, by those for whom he can only be a name, a body of work, rather than a resilient old guy with bad knees and the gift of mordant political humor: Rove has figured out that maybe 49% of the American public is too dumb to know what they’re voting for, “So we’ve got to work on that number, get it up to 53–55%, then we’ll be in power forever.”
Note # 2–'''Norman Mailer''' — He has almost become only a name, but not yet. As of April 2007, he remains on our side, a working writer, and for many people a kind acquaintance, for some a poker-playing friend, and for some others, still a doughty enemy. But he’s 84; and soon entry to the book of <u>Shook-His-Hand</u> will be closed, and the strike-throughs on the roll (for example, <s>''Robert Lucid''</s>) will not be replaced by new, glad hands. — That fact suggests one reason for ''{{MR}}'', which will become a record of the ''trying out'' (I trust NM will like the Melville-inflected whaling term) of his work, by those for whom he can only be a name, a body of work, rather than a resilient old guy with bad knees and the gift of mordant political humor: Rove has figured out that maybe 49% of the American public is too dumb to know what they’re voting for, “So we’ve got to work on that number, get it up to 53–55%, then we’ll be in power forever.”


Note #3–'''Comparisons''' — they can be Dogberry-ish because they are the surprise party to which a reader invites a Notable. The guest list is idiosyncratic — perhaps crazed — and it changes in the flickering nano-seconds of a reader’s consciousness. The poor Notable has no say in making the list (though he can suggest additions to it). Much less does the Notable have any control over that reader’s decision to invest hours in creating a critical moment, the purpose of which is engendering the stuff of legacy, argument, conferences, inner & outer circles, iconoclasts & acolytes, anxiety-producing influence — all the, call it ''paraphernalia'' of literary worth and endurance. — Here’s my guest list in alphabetical order. It suggests that for this moment I read from Mailer the distinctly Victorian project of envisioning middle class salvation (that is, my own):
Note #3–'''Comparisons''' — they can be Dogberry-ish because they are the surprise party to which a reader invites a Notable. The guest list is idiosyncratic — perhaps crazed — and it changes in the flickering nano-seconds of a reader’s consciousness. The poor Notable has no say in making the list (though he can suggest additions to it). Much less does the Notable have any control over that reader’s decision to invest hours in creating a critical moment, the purpose of which is engendering the stuff of legacy, argument, conferences, inner & outer circles, iconoclasts & acolytes, anxiety-producing influence — all the, call it ''paraphernalia'' of literary worth and endurance. — Here’s my guest list in alphabetical order. It suggests that for this moment I read from Mailer the distinctly Victorian project of envisioning middle class salvation (that is, my own):
Line 23: Line 24:
I am he who knew what it was to be evil
I am he who knew what it was to be evil
I too knitted the old knot of contriety,
I too knitted the old knot of contriety,
Blabbed, blush’d, resented, lied, stole,<ref>Not established as fact</ref> grudge’d
Blabbed, blush’d, resented, lied, stole,<ref>Not established as fact.</ref> grudge’d
Had guile, anger, lust, hot wishes I dared not speak,
Had guile, anger, lust, hot wishes I dared not speak,
Was wayward, vain, greedy, shallow....
Was wayward, vain, greedy, shallow....
Line 42: Line 43:


{{Review|state=expanded}}
{{Review|state=expanded}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Five Notes Toward a Reassessment of Norman Mailer}}
[[Category:Articles (MR)]]
[[Category:Articles (MR)]]
Retrieved from "https://projectmailer.net/pm/Special:MobileDiff/8536...10655"