88
edits
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 21:22, 1 September 2020
, 1 September 2020no edit summary
Amylhester (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amylhester (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
==III. The Portrait of a Young Man—Hubbard and Mailer== | ==III. The Portrait of a Young Man—Hubbard and Mailer== | ||
There is a strange ambiguity within Harlot’s Ghost concerning the novel’s | There is a strange ambiguity within ''Harlot’s Ghost'' concerning the novel’s subject matter. The novel is about real historical events yet it also serves as a ''Bildüngsroman'' (as Hubbard himself describes the work) (''HG'' 109) under the veneer of the spy genre. ''Harlot’s Ghost'' certainly disappoints readers who | ||
subject matter. The novel is about real historical events yet it also serves as | expect the traditional features of spy novels, since all of the experiences described are left profoundly opaque and there are no heroic resolutions à la Ian Fleming. Perhaps the closest literary comparison would be Conrad’s ''The Secret Agent'' since both novels are filled with bureaucratic machinations, unsavory characters, and a vision of society in terminal crisis, although Mailer never provides even the limited cognitive satisfaction of Conrad’s | ||
a Bildüngsroman | highly ambiguous work. In ''The Secret Agent'', readers are at least provided with enough details to understand the motivations of the characters and the events of the novel. ''Harlot’s Ghost'' features an almost complete, radical indeterminacy, where it is not just the characters that don’t know the meaning of the events but also the readers and perhaps even the author himself. This situation is justified by understanding the real subject matter of the novel. | ||
the veneer of the spy genre. Harlot’s Ghost certainly disappoints readers who | |||
expect the traditional features of spy novels, since all of the experiences | |||
described are left profoundly opaque and there are no heroic resolutions à | |||
la Ian Fleming. Perhaps the closest literary comparison would be Conrad’s | |||
The Secret Agent since both novels are filled with bureaucratic machinations, | |||
unsavory characters, and a vision of society in terminal crisis, although | |||
Mailer never provides even the limited cognitive satisfaction of Conrad’s | |||
highly ambiguous work. In The Secret Agent, readers are at least provided | |||
with enough details to understand the motivations of the characters and the events of the novel. Harlot’s Ghost features an almost complete, radical indeterminacy, where it is not just the characters that don’t know the meaning of | |||
the events but also the readers and perhaps even the author himself. This situation is justified by understanding the real subject matter of the novel. | |||
Critics who have written about the novel have generally taken it as a simple novel about the CIA, and have failed to notice its allegorical features and | Critics who have written about the novel have generally taken it as a simple novel about the CIA, and have failed to notice its allegorical features and | ||