Project Mailer

The Mailer Review/Volume 3, 2009/Genre-Bending in The Armies of the Night: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

The Mailer Review/Volume 3, 2009/Genre-Bending in The Armies of the Night (view source)

Revision as of 09:22, 25 June 2021

40 bytes added ,  25 June 2021
Tweaks. Started converting parenthetical citations to footnotes. See PM:RA for directions.
(Added abstract and showed example of footnotes. Corrections. More necessary.)
(Tweaks. Started converting parenthetical citations to footnotes. See PM:RA for directions.)
Line 4: Line 4:
{{Byline|last=Mosser |first=Jason |abstract=How does Norman Mailer define the terms “novel” and “history” in the context of his literary journalism? Literary journalism is certainly the only generic label that completely fits. Further, if we take the text to be a work of New Journalism, then what part is journalism, as opposed to what parts are fiction and history, and how do we distinguish among the genres? Mailer
{{Byline|last=Mosser |first=Jason |abstract=How does Norman Mailer define the terms “novel” and “history” in the context of his literary journalism? Literary journalism is certainly the only generic label that completely fits. Further, if we take the text to be a work of New Journalism, then what part is journalism, as opposed to what parts are fiction and history, and how do we distinguish among the genres? Mailer
configures all three genres in remarkably original ways.| url=https://prmlr.us/mr03mos }}
configures all three genres in remarkably original ways.| url=https://prmlr.us/mr03mos }}


{{dc|dc=I|n ''The Armies of the Night''}}, Norman Mailer recreates his participation in an anti-Vietnam War march that took place in Washington D.C. in October, 1967. Mailer subtitles Book/Part One ''History as a Novel'', and Book/Part Two ''the Novel as History'', but he ultimately begs the questions, what part is which, and which part is what? Are both parts both? Kathy Smith astutely observes that the “as” in Mailer’s subtitles, “History as a Novel” and “the Novel as History,” “denotes a metaphorical relationship between history and fiction, implying not only that history is ''like'' fiction, and vice versa, but that one always contains the other. . . . Mailer uses ‘as’ to complicate the terms, allowing them to merge into one another.”{{sfn|Smith|2003|p=191}} How does Mailer define the terms novel and history in the context of his literary journalism? Literary journalism is certainly the only generic label that completely fits. Further, if we take the text to be a work of New Journalism, then what part is journalism, as opposed to what parts are fiction and history, and how do we distinguish among the genres? Mailer bends all three to suit his purposes.
{{dc|dc=I|n ''The Armies of the Night''}}, Norman Mailer recreates his participation in an anti-Vietnam War march that took place in Washington D.C. in October, 1967. Mailer subtitles Book/Part One ''History as a Novel'', and Book/Part Two ''the Novel as History'', but he ultimately begs the questions, what part is which, and which part is what? Are both parts both? Kathy Smith astutely observes that the “as” in Mailer’s subtitles, “History as a Novel” and “the Novel as History,” “denotes a metaphorical relationship between history and fiction, implying not only that history is ''like'' fiction, and vice versa, but that one always contains the other. . . . Mailer uses ‘as’ to complicate the terms, allowing them to merge into one another.”{{sfn|Smith|2003|p=191}} How does Mailer define the terms novel and history in the context of his literary journalism? Literary journalism is certainly the only generic label that completely fits. Further, if we take the text to be a work of New Journalism, then what part is journalism, as opposed to what parts are fiction and history, and how do we distinguish among the genres? Mailer bends all three to suit his purposes.
Line 14: Line 13:
Lennon’s summary faithfully represents Mailer’s own distinctions. The question is whether Mailer’s critical principles are consistent with his practice as a writer. A related question: when Mailer references history and journalism, is he talking about what he considers standard historiographic and journalistic practice or his own? The dichotomy that Lennon brings to light suggests that Mailer conceives of history and journalism as those forms are traditionally understood, but when we look closely at ''Armies'', a work of New Journalism, we can see that the text embodies many of the qualities Mailer associates with fiction. First, Mailer’s heuristic, improvisational style gives to ''Armies'' the sense of spontaneity he associates with his preferred form, the novel. Further, Mailer’s focus on his own perceptions and impressions does at times intensify the reader’s consciousness in sympathetic union with the narrator’s, and some of the more deliberative passages, such as the “Why Are We in Vietnam?” chapter, present the reader with the difficult moral choices such as how to end the war in Vietnam without creating even greater instability in southeast Asia. Finally, the form of ''Armies'' is ultimately open-ended, ambiguous, and suggestive, qualities Mailer again associates with fiction; his metaphorical final chapter illumines questions about the future of the embattled Republic without drawing definitive conclusions.
Lennon’s summary faithfully represents Mailer’s own distinctions. The question is whether Mailer’s critical principles are consistent with his practice as a writer. A related question: when Mailer references history and journalism, is he talking about what he considers standard historiographic and journalistic practice or his own? The dichotomy that Lennon brings to light suggests that Mailer conceives of history and journalism as those forms are traditionally understood, but when we look closely at ''Armies'', a work of New Journalism, we can see that the text embodies many of the qualities Mailer associates with fiction. First, Mailer’s heuristic, improvisational style gives to ''Armies'' the sense of spontaneity he associates with his preferred form, the novel. Further, Mailer’s focus on his own perceptions and impressions does at times intensify the reader’s consciousness in sympathetic union with the narrator’s, and some of the more deliberative passages, such as the “Why Are We in Vietnam?” chapter, present the reader with the difficult moral choices such as how to end the war in Vietnam without creating even greater instability in southeast Asia. Finally, the form of ''Armies'' is ultimately open-ended, ambiguous, and suggestive, qualities Mailer again associates with fiction; his metaphorical final chapter illumines questions about the future of the embattled Republic without drawing definitive conclusions.


One way to bridge the gap between or among the genres is to borrow Kenneth Burke’s metaphor of history as drama, to read Mailer’s text as a dramatic conflict in which Mailer, playing the role of protagonist, dramatizes the political struggle between the right-wing establishment and the left- wing anti-establishment over the war in Vietnam. Mailer’s distinction between the methods adopted by historians and journalists and his own novelistic method is similar to the distinction Burke makes between the “semantic” and “poetic” ideals in ''The Philosophy of Literary Form'', (138–164). Traditionally, historians and journalists, striving to achieve the “semantic” ideal, stress the role of the observer, attempting, according to Burke, “''to get a description'' [of an event] by the ''elimination'' of an attitude ... to ''cut away'', to ''abstract'', all emotional factors that complicate the objective clarity of meaning” (147–8). Mailer, adhering to the “poetic” ideal, stresses the role of the participant and, indeed, he refers to himself as “the Participant” in the text. Mailer’s primary concern is with preparing a dramatically persuasive image which will invite the audience’s symbolic participation in the historical struggle. Through a dramatic, “poetic” presentation of events, Mailer appeals to his readers to give their assent to his subjective observations, reactions, and analyses. His emotional involvement in the March and his commitment to radical causes—however qualified—set him apart from other journalists and historians. According to Burke, literary artists like Mailer, striving to achieve the “poetic” ideal:
One way to bridge the gap between or among the genres is to borrow Kenneth Burke’s metaphor of history as drama, to read Mailer’s text as a dramatic conflict in which Mailer, playing the role of protagonist, dramatizes the political struggle between the right-wing establishment and the left- wing anti-establishment over the war in Vietnam. Mailer’s distinction between the methods adopted by historians and journalists and his own novelistic method is similar to the distinction Burke makes between the “semantic” and “poetic” ideals in ''The Philosophy of Literary Form''.{{sfn|Burke|1974|pp=138–164}} Traditionally, historians and journalists, striving to achieve the “semantic” ideal, stress the role of the observer, attempting, according to Burke, “to ''get a description'' [of an event] by the ''elimination'' of an attitude ... to ''cut away'', to ''abstract'', all emotional factors that complicate the objective clarity of meaning.”{{sfn|Burke|1974|pp=147–48}} Mailer, adhering to the “poetic” ideal, stresses the role of the participant and, indeed, he refers to himself as “the Participant” in the text. Mailer’s primary concern is with preparing a dramatically persuasive image which will invite the audience’s symbolic participation in the historical struggle. Through a dramatic, “poetic” presentation of events, Mailer appeals to his readers to give their assent to his subjective observations, reactions, and analyses. His emotional involvement in the March and his commitment to radical causes—however qualified—set him apart from other journalists and historians. According to Burke, literary artists like Mailer, striving to achieve the “poetic” ideal:
 
{{quote|[W]ould attempt to ''attain a full moral act'' by attaining a perspective ''atop all the conflicts of attitude'' ... to derive its vision from the maximum ''heaping up'' of all these emotional factors, playing them off against one another, inviting them to reinforce and contradict one another, and seeking to make this active participation itself a major ingredient of the vision.{{sfn|Burke|1974|p=148}} }}
<blockquote>[W]ould attempt to ''attain a full moral act'' by attaining a perspective ''atop all the conflicts of attitude'' ... to derive its vision from the maximum ''heaping up'' of all these emotional factors, playing them off against one another, inviting them to reinforce and contradict one another, and seeking to make this active participation itself a major ingredient of the vision. (148)</blockquote>


Mailer attempts to foreground as many “conflicts of attitude” into his text as possible as he dramatizes a process in which competing discourses engage each other dialectically. In Bakhtinian terms, ''Armies'' is a “heteroglossic” text: “''another’s speech in another’s language'', serving to express authorial intentions but in a refracted way” (Bakhtin 324). By incorporating the language of others into his own text, Mailer plays the various voices off one another dialectically, multiplying perspectives so that no particular ideological viewpoint, other than Mailer’s idiosyncratic own, is privileged over the others, yet even Mailer, in the wake of the event, refuses to draw definitive conclusions about the significance and outcome of the march on the Pentagon (Mailer 236). Dramatically and dialectically, ''Armies'' resists closure; the historic conflicts it develops remain unresolved.
Mailer attempts to foreground as many “conflicts of attitude” into his text as possible as he dramatizes a process in which competing discourses engage each other dialectically. In Bakhtinian terms, ''Armies'' is a “heteroglossic” text: “''another’s speech in another’s language'', serving to express authorial intentions but in a refracted way” (Bakhtin 324). By incorporating the language of others into his own text, Mailer plays the various voices off one another dialectically, multiplying perspectives so that no particular ideological viewpoint, other than Mailer’s idiosyncratic own, is privileged over the others, yet even Mailer, in the wake of the event, refuses to draw definitive conclusions about the significance and outcome of the march on the Pentagon (Mailer 236). Dramatically and dialectically, ''Armies'' resists closure; the historic conflicts it develops remain unresolved.
Retrieved from "https://projectmailer.net/pm/Special:MobileDiff/15056"