26
edits
The Mailer Review/Volume 3, 2009/Courtly Mailer: The Legacy Derby: Difference between revisions
The Mailer Review/Volume 3, 2009/Courtly Mailer: The Legacy Derby (view source)
Revision as of 20:48, 16 June 2021
, 16 June 2021Completion of page 283
(Completion of page 282) |
(Completion of page 283) |
||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
Naturally, I differ with ''Smithsonian'' and Morrow. So, I toured the derby | Naturally, I differ with ''Smithsonian'' and Morrow. So, I toured the derby | ||
site, did some laps cruising, not speeding, but stopping. I consider my experience with multiple Mailer “stops” or “visits.” Over a span of more than forty years, four visits of them were in-depth and three visits were less so. The following discussion is not a composed memoir, just a series of short takes. I was looking for “Courtly Norman” and I found him. | site, did some laps cruising, not speeding, but stopping. I consider my experience with multiple Mailer “stops” or “visits.” Over a span of more than forty years, four visits of them were in-depth and three visits were less so. The following discussion is not a composed memoir, just a series of short takes. I was looking for “Courtly Norman” and I found him. | ||
'''I. Iowa city (1963)''' | |||
Our first meeting was a bundle of “hellos” and “smiles.” The English department at the University of Iowa had billed me as a pioneer scholar, writing the first doctoral dissertation on Norman Mailer. That fact was what greeted Mailer, who was on a college tour as an “''Esquire'' Literary Symposium” panelist. I was only four years younger than Mailer and must have given off a whiff of pre-academic street sensibilities. This part of me Mailer must have sensed or at least that’s what his first handshake said: “All’s well that starts well.” | |||
I was not able to meet with Norman alone and the one-day symposium was hectic and hurried. Mailer, as expected, was the star panelist. He seemed to be on the edge, almost incandescent, a young celebrity in full bloom. Admirers constantly swarmed around him. He answered questions and offered helpful tips and literary contacts. He gave me names, addresses, phone numbers, and said continually, “Mention my name.” He was not an offish visitor; on the contrary he was exceptionally friendly. And Norman seemed genuinely interested in both me and my dissertation. | |||
The panel presentation was cantankerous and Mailer was usually the instigator. Afterwards, we promised to meet at the night’s big party for a “real talk.” Unwisely, I was a little late and Mailer had already left. The party | |||
host, Donald Justice (the poet) told me that Mailer and Mark Harris (the | |||
writer) had a fracas. Edmund Skellings (another poet and my best friend) | |||
had cooled down Mailer and off they went. Knowing Ed, I suspected a | |||
flashy Corvette and something hallucinogenic. I asked, “Are they coming | |||
back?” My host shrugged poetically. And I waited and waited but nothing | |||
happened. | |||
There was, however, an existential dawn, this one smiling. Ed told me that | |||
he and Norman had driven around, smoked, and talked, and the latter | |||
included me. At evening’s end, Mailer said, “I’ll be seeing you and Don | |||
again.” Skellings had work his social magic. | |||
The “''Esquire'' Literary Symposium” was not Camelot or Versailles and | |||
Mailer was hardly “Courtly,” but he was aware, sensitive, amiable, and most | |||
promising. Norman Mailer and I had a future, I was sure of it. | |||