The Mailer Review/Volume 2, 2008/A New Politics of Form in Harlot's Ghost: Difference between revisions

The Mailer Review/Volume 2, 2008/A New Politics of Form in Harlot's Ghost (view source)

Revision as of 19:49, 1 September 2020

7,699 bytes added , 1 September 2020

no edit summary

Amylhester

88

edits

@@ Line 521: / Line 521: @@
 ==V. Back to the Future==
+There is one other way that the novel offers knowledge about history. The
+novel was written before the end of the Cold War. Since this point, we, the
+readers of history, have been told the story that we are at the “end of history”where the great dualistic struggle between capitalism ~as represented by
+America! and communism ~represented by the Soviet bloc! is over, goodness has won, and the era of peace and prosperity is awaiting.16 This suggests that the truth of the Cold War was revealed and it can be seen clearly
+what was at stake—the benefits of liberal democracy or the necessarily evil
+nature of communism or any attempt to challenge the market system. In a
+sense, history seemed to provide the answer to the question of Mailer’s novel.
+A sense of euphoria and moral certitude swept over the victors of the Cold
+War as they proclaimed with religious ferocity the advent of the American
+Century and the “new world order.” However, quickly this resolution of the
+plot dissolved. From the vantage point of distance, the choice God or the Devil, the Soviet Union or America, victory or defeat seems a strange piece
+of “disinformation.” Despite America’s victory, like Norman Mailer’s unfinished novel, all of the dangers and possibilities, the ambiguities and contradictions, seem still unresolved. Mailer turns out to be prescient; the novel is
+not over. There still has been no way to end, for good or bad, the plot twists
+and surprises, the unexplained betrayals and crimes of recent history. Any
+answers to history that seemed written by the end of the Cold War turn out
+to be incomplete and faulty, ideological and short-sighted as capitalist America continues to engender conflict and confusion, dangers and resistance.
+The truth of these events will not be given to us by some expert with words.
+We are still left to create the story that will tell the truth of our times, but it
+won’t be written on paper.
+notes
+. See again Advertisements as well as essays in Cannibals and Christians and Norman Mailer,
+Pieces and Pontifications ~Boston: Little Brown, 1982!. This point recurs throughout his
+writing.
+. One of the many critics who argue this way is Heather Nielson ~pp. 23–41!, who sums up
+her conclusion about Mailer’s politics based on Harlot’s Ghost and Oswald’s Tale by stating, “What an examination of the persistent presence of Kennedy in their writings tends
+to suggest is that, for all Mailer’s non-conformism, his oeuvre serves to ultimately uphold
+the defining myths of the society which he describes, while that of Vidal works to undermine them” ~23!. While her analysis of the episodes featuring Kennedy in Mailer’s work
+and Vidal’s is persuasive in showing that Mailer’s writings on Kennedy are more positive than Vidal’s, this doesn’t justify, in my opinion, the broad conclusions she draws. On
+the other hand, the major critic who has treated Harlot’s Ghost as a whole, John WhalenBridge argues persuasively in “The Myth of American Adam in Late Mailer” that Mailer’s novel debunks the “myth of the American Adam.” This “myth” described by R.W.B
+Lewis ~and others! concerns alleged American “innocence” which Whalen-Bridge convincingly demonstrates is undermined by the novel.Whalen-Bridge is the major scholar
+that has written in detail on Harlot’s Ghost and draws the conclusion that “His @Mailer’s
+DA# fictional interpretation of American intelligence work does more than any other
+work of literature to help readers gain access to ‘the imagination of the state.’ ” Unfortunately, few others have recognized the critical features of the novel. See also WhalenBridge, Political Fiction and the American Self. Others who don’t believe the novel is
+critical of the CIA include Glenday who, in his biography states categorically that the
+novel “doesn’t set out be, then, a critique of the CIA” ~p. 131! and Dearborn.
+{ THE MAILER REVIEW
+. I would place this novel alongside masterpieces of Cold War literature such as Coover,
+Doctorow and Delillo below. All of these novels challenge the conventions of traditional
+literary realism and present radical formal structures.
+. 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.
+. 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.
+. Conspiracy theories have been taken by several critics as the hallmark of postmodern historical representation. See Jameson, and McHale, among others.
+. 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!.
+. 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,
+is obvious in Harlot’s Ghost” ~p. 409!. This seems to me to miss the ambiguity and tension that drive the novel and represents a too simplistic conflation of the framework of
+the protagonist with the logic of the novel.
+. See Brecht, “The Modern Theater is the Epic Theater” in Brecht on Theater.
+. See Benjamin pp. 85–105. I wish to make it clear that I am not suggesting that Mailer was
+influenced by this essay directly but rather that it helps us understand the functioning and
+logic of the structure of the novel. While Mailer never cites Benjamin or Brecht, in relation to this novel or in any of his writings ~that I know of!, his explanation for the structure of the novel, quoted towards the end of this essay ~see footnote 45! echoes their
+approach.
+. Benjamin pp. 85–105.
+. A notable exception, as mentioned above, is John Whalen-Bridge.
+. See An American Dream and the episodes of rock climbing in Harlot’s Ghost.
+. Mailer makes explicit his connection with his characters in the “Authors Note” of Harlot’s Ghost when he says that, “I wrote this book with the part of my mind that had lived
+in the CIA for forty years” ~1169!, going on to say that he might have joined the CIA proDAVID ANSHEN { 471
+vided he had a “different political bent” ~1170!. On at least one other occasion, he explicitly compared the life of writers, and his, with CIA agents. In an interview quoted by
+Glenday, he explains, “I have an umbilical connection to Harlot’s Ghost because I’ve been
+obsessed with questions of identity my whole life” explaining that the changes in his status as a writer have been comparable to “spies and actors who take on roles that are not
+their own” ~Norman Mailer 134!.
+. See Mailer, Genius and Lust.
+. The most famous version of this comes from Francis Fukiyama’s book. He has since basically abandoned his thesis and now warns of the dangers to civilization by “radical Islamist” forces.