Dear Mr. Two Emmas:
You are keeping one of the most provocative literary journals on the Internet,
and I hope there will be no end to it. Thus far I have especially enjoyed
Charlotte Bronte's acerbic critique: it was a resonating bong! amidst all the Austen
noise.
Speaking of critics and critiques, I pulled a book written by Alexander Theroux
off my shelf. I purchased it at a yard sale some years back, and finally
decided to have a go at it yesterday afternoon. The title might pique your
interest: An Adultery.
The following reviews appeared on the back cover:
". . . Part cautionary tale, part homage to the great books of the genre
by Hawthorne, Flaubert, Tolstoy and James, An Adultery is a novel of linguistic
virtuosity and riveting insight--a classic for our time." - Macmillan
Publishing Company
"Theroux's new novel is a brilliant piece of work--a psychological
masterpiece in which the prose is of classic stature, the imagery just, and the
capacity for character analysis immensely sophisticated. . . ." - Anthony
Burgess
"A fascinating, eloquent, thoughtful, and wonderfully written book."
- Susan Cheever, "Los Angeles Times Book Review"
Here an excerpt from page 40 of the book. It is the last line I read before
slamming it shut:
"But of course I went, one freezing night following her car in my own to a
dimly lit side street on the outskirts of St. Ives where a mock couple, a mimic
marriage, we had dinner and listened to music--she played soft jazz over and
over--and talked in an anxiety-ridden pre-appointed mood as doubly indistinct
as the faint gradations of tone perceptible in the sky outside the large winter
window of the living room that brought a constant chill into rooms as sterile
and white as the snow outside, a dampness which Farol, constantly feeding logs
into the wood stove, sought to buffer in spite of the general caveat there, her
husband's upon leaving, that she not waste wood."
I admit the novel could very well have been Theroux's "prose of classic
stature" and "linguistic virtuosity" that, upon meeting with my
own dull-wittedness, compelled a resounding "ACK!" from my lips. But
never mind me, I can see from your discourse on the Two Emmas that you are
qualified to make your own critical assessment. I know I would be greatly pleased
with it, and I hope you can spare it.
Sincerely,
Madame Melina
Postscript:
I realize your Emmas are two of the finest creatures devised according to the
new Realism of their time, so please forgive me for intruding into your
discourse on same yet again. I wish to add to my previous remarks on An
Adultery before you come to a definite opinion on same. I do not believe I am
impertinent for doing so. I was astonished to see Alexander Theroux flattered
with a comparison to the great Flaubert. Alas, literature has decayed since
Jane Austen and Gustave Flaubert set pen to paper. What passes for fine
literature today would cause them to spin in their graves if they could care at
all for their own immortality as authors after their deaths. Alas, the art of
writing has been degraded to such a confusing post-modern mess that anything
that makes sense or sensibility will soon be rendered absolutely
incomprehensible. If the tasteless trend continues, people will only think that
they're reading and writing, for they shall have lost their ability to think,
and therefore to write.
In all fairness to Alexander Theroux, I must admit that, when I first read the
line I cited from his An Adultery for your highly esteemed consideration, I was
struck with the fact that such an artful array of running sentence fragments
could not have been the result of mere accident, say, like falling down a
flight of stairs. Instead a marionette, an unwitting subject of deliberate
manipulation comes to mind, one bade to posture and tumble down the stairs by
virtue of a a higher power, exercised, of course, by the puppeteer.
I do not propose that the arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power has no
place in fiction-writing. However, I believe the reader will subconsciously or
otherwise perceive and be confused by the ambiguity of Theroux's sort of
tyrannical writing. I quote two additional excerpts from An Adultery to clarify
what I mean by this. The first quote provides a glimpse of the author's writing
style including his tyrannical treatment of his main character, Christian Ford.
The second provides a small taste of his "fascinating, eloquent,
thoughtful, and wonderfully written book" (Los Angeles Times Book Review):
"I have a tendency to speak with the spasmodic cadences of a person who
wants words out of the way in a hurry and along with something of a regional
accent have a way of extending my vowels so that I seem to be racing through
lists of possible meanings of statements in mid-word, almost stuttering to get
on with an idea."
"I felt her in confidence immediately, a side of her (at complete
loggerheads of what is expected in beauty of self-assurance) she ascribed, when
I mentioned it, not to what I'd presumed was an unhappy marriage, though this
entered into it, but oddly enough to her father, an artist, she from childhood
loved far more, she felt, than he her--I thought I heard a therapist's echo--a
matter of import apparently in that she admitted to an interest in the arts
herself, drawing, sculpting, whatever."
ACK! I say again, but I am but one voice crying out in the Void, which is
sufficient reason to be confused. Here then are other voices, no less confused
by my estimation, and though I risk boring you with repetition, note the
different ways some readers will rationalize their confusion, i.e., perceive
the effects of unrestrained exercise of power by the author over their thoughts
and feelings. I might add, the latter speaks to Theroux's "literary
prowess" (I use the term loosely), otherwise known as the power to dupe:
'Another masterpiece from the other Theroux,' November 5, 1999. Reviewer: from
Washington, DC.
"A wonderfully excoriating novel from one of America's greatest authors.
Ever. Though not as rich and encyclopedic as the better and better known
Darconville's Cat, it is honed and tightly written, and at home among the
several great American novels written in the last 30 years. . . . As to be
expected, the quality of the language and the vituperation in which it is often
adorned is for its own sake worth the effort (and yes, effort is required) and
worthy of the cited Frederick Rolfe."
'It grows on you,' October 21, 1997. Reviewer from Ottawa, Canada.
"After getting over the annoyance of Theroux's 'hoity-toity' way of
writing, and the largely unrealistic dialogue, this book truly grows on you.
You find that you have to force yourself to read the first 1/3 of the book, but
after that, you then look forward to what's next. It may not be the
'Psychological Masterpiece', as it has been toted to be, but it is a very
heartfelt and emotionally wrenching book." Reviewer: A Reader
'Hard going but worth the effort,' August 6, 1997. Reviewer: A reader.
"I wonder why this was not a best-seller. As usual with this author you
need to work at it staying with him. It is sometime repetitious - or it seems
so to the unenlightened like me." Reviewer: A Reader
"Ah! To stumble time and time again over impossibly tangled syntax, doze
off in the middle of a paragraph--oh, excuse me, I meant sentence--and force
oneself to stay the course through thickets of wholly inane, self-conscious
dialogue is to be, forsooth, unenlightened. If this is the case, then we must
view the following comments made by a Washington reader not as a genuine
response to Theroux's An Adultery, but as a testimony to what surely must be
her own mental defects: Insufferable characters, June 7, 1999. Reviewer: A
reader from Olympia, WA.
"The only thing that prevented me from giving this book 1 star was that
there were some good observations - otherwise the characters are annoying, the
writing is pretentious, and the general effect is both creepy and
pathetic." Reviewer: A Reader
I ask you, Mr. Two Emmas, what is the literary world coming to? I do not
consider Mr. Theroux's An Adultery or at least parts of it, to be entirely
without merit; any number of its sentences would surely win first prize in the
prestigious Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest for the opening line of the worst of
all possible novels. It is no simple feat to write non sequitur, maddeningly
involuted prose with a deft hand, and a writer's ability to pull it off should
indeed be noted, if only occasionally admired.
Of course, I do not want to unduly influence your opinion, and I certainly hope
you will render it as soon as possible.
-------
Dear Madame Melina,
Your letters have inspired me to pen a treatment of constructive
criticism!
Reality is the death of me and I can't stand realism for long. I have taken
your letters under consideration, and I'm afraid you have left me with the
impression that literary Realism has become dog food because of the decadent
reality that realists really represent because they live in the animal shelter.
The hounds bark hysterically before meals and think they sing ever so
beautifully.
Of course I do not speak of the reality of idealism but of the technological
materialism that has turned writers into mechanical street-sweeper drivers.
They resort to cumbersome formulas at public expense. The public thinks the
street-sweepers are doing a lovely job, but once they have passed by, it
becomes obvious to refined sophisticates that the dirt, trash and leaves have
just been shuffled around to the sides of a broad wet streak in the gutter,
thus the process is really a waste of time and money albeit only a few lucid
people know it. Whereas the realists of old could not help making a mysterious
romance out of reality while actually playing in the mud with humankind.
But I am no critic, Madame. I thank you for considering me as such even though
I find critics personally revolting. However, I am a reviewer from time to
time: I will be glad to give a friend's book a glowing review at Amazon. And I
will honor your request for a critique of the brief excerpts you sent over from
Alexander Theroux's book, limiting myself to same since they do not inspire me
to look further.
After I received your first communication about this literary gift to the
world, it occurred to me that I lack critical criteria for critiques, that I
have no standard for praise and blame except my own gut feelings, which depend
on the frequency and quality of my meals. I had just eaten a good dinner, and I
was not in a mood to do what so-called 'good' critics seem to do best,
something that makes of the word, 'critic,' a pejorative expression. Now most
of the critics you just cited seemed to be flatterers, and therefore bad
critics. I found myself in a quandary, and heartburn was setting in.
It suddenly struck me that I might avoid putting your author down or raising
him up, and instead provide a criticism that might flatter me! I remembered
Niccolo Tucci's paper, 'On Constructive Criticism' - it appeared in the
November 1949 issue of Partisan Review. It so impressed me that I kept a copy.
The best way, I thought, to provide you with the critique you want, would be to
simply write a superlative paraphrase of the first paragraph you submitted to
me - a better paragraph on the same subject!
I retrieved Niccolo's article for better guidance - from under the bathroom
sink - it was behind the hardened can of Ajax and the cockroaches, and was
still in relatively good shape although stained brown. I sat down on the toilet
and read this:
"I wonder if the 'constructivists' have ever paused long enough to
consider what would happen in the other fields of criticism if their principles
were suddenly accepted. For example, music. Now, when a serious musical critic
dismisses as symphony as bad, and gives only the reasons why it does not hold
together musically, that is rightly called 'criticism.'
"If the same musical critic announced the next day that he has composed a
symphony of his own, that would be rightly referred to as a symphony of his
own. But if upon presenting his own composition to the public, he said: 'This
music here is a constructive criticism of the symphony criticized by me
yesterday,' he would rightly be sent to the unholiest places and criticized,
not once but twice: first as a critic who does not keep his place; secondly as
a composer who pretends to be exempt from criticism because, until yesterday,
he was a critic too."
Niccolo proposed that art museums allow space for critics' paintings next to
the paintings they criticize. That is a great idea! I thought, and should be
applied to libraries. As it is, we have a few volumes of an author's work on
the shelf, followed by volumes of praise and blame. Why not rid the shelves of
praise and blame, in favor of volumes of constructive criticism? War and Peace,
for example, will be followed by the critics' versions of the masterpiece!
Niccolo pointed out that 'Constructive criticism' was a relative new
phenomenon, most popular in the U.S., for it was purportedly 'democratic.' In
his opinion, so-called constructive criticism is an attempt to tone down
genuine criticism. It is equivalent to a happy ending in the movies. And to
demand that a critic, who criticizes a work based on common sense, should be
expert enough to do it better, is childishly arrogant and demonstrative of the
prejudice that one must be a specialized to be qualified to know the difference
between good and bad work. That concept is sheer nonsense and often dishonest -
common-sense criticism is so embarrassing to political leaders, for example,
that they insist on diplomatic and military secrecy in the "interest of
national (their own) security."
Furthermore, the objection that negative as opposed to constructive criticism
is destructive hence worthless is cry-baby talk. The negative critic has no
duty except to except to negate, and has no obligation to come up with a
workable solution.
"It's like advertising," Niccoli wrote, referring to the constructive
criticism of the trains going to the death camps. "The world goes to the
dogs, everything is dark, but we here at the factory have a new toothpaste that
will brighten your smile."
He thinks that constructive criticism is not really democratic but is a
despotic attempt at getting critics to show respect for the people and theories
they criticize. It was borrowed from masters of that technique: Hitler and
Mussolini. It was called "criticism within the system" because it was
not "criticism of the system." It got to comic proportions in Italy.
He gives this dialogue in Russia:
Critic: We, the Russian people do not want these chains.
Stalin: You are perfectly right. I will give you better ones.
Critic: We don't want better ones, we want none at all.
Stalin: You are a pessimist, a negativist, a destructive critic. You do not
believe that I am here to help you. If you tell me your grievances concretely,
I may help you, but if you insist on asking for the impossible, I will have to
eliminate you.
Well, Madame Melina, Niccolo Tucci certainly made some excellent points, and I
was glad I reviewed them. Nevertheless, when I got off the throne, I knew that
the best way to criticize the paragraph you sent over was to write a better
one. And that I shall do as soon as possible. As you may have noticed, I have
been quite busy lately because the world is going to the dogs and something
must be done.
And now, Madame, you shall find my constructive criticism directly below the
text it criticizes. Since a critic once charged Flaubert with making coffins
for illusions, I decided to portray an actual experience realistically in
accordance with the new Southern American Realism, hoping that it might pass
for good fiction notwithstanding the diction.
"But of course I
went, one freezing night following her car in my own to a dimly lit side street
on the outskirts of St. Ives where a mock couple, a mimic marriage, we had
dinner and listened to music--she played soft jazz over and over--and talked in
an anxiety-ridden pre-appointed mood as doubly indistinct as the faint
gradations of tone perceptible in the sky outside the large winter window of
the living room that brought a constant chill into rooms as sterile and white
as the snow outside, a dampness which Farol, constantly feeding logs into the
wood stove, sought to buffer in spite of the general caveat there, her
husband's upon leaving, that she not waste wood." (Alexander Theroux)
Hothouse Intercourse! by
Mister Two Emmas:
I followed Ruby Lee's
antique white Volvo home one snowy night in rigid anticipation of what was to
come in her husband's absence - I hardly heard my engine roaring and my chained
tires crunching up the dark winding road to her secluded home in the woods
forty miles outside Atlanta, towards Gainesville. As I pulled up behind her
after she parked, she flung upon the door of her car, stepped with bare feet
into the snow, stark nude, white against white in my bright beams - except for
her glimmering bleached hair above reflecting tiger-eyes, shining red lips, two
pinkish spots, and black magic triangle. "Come, leave the lights on, baby,
come to me, he's gone, find my hot spot on the hood again!" Ruby Lee sang
out, breath steaming in the frigid glare as she swung her hips round low to
bump-and-grind Kansas City jazz blaring over bass booms from the new auto
stereo Jack had installed for her birthday. "But what about the house?
It's warm in there," I panted after I had hustled into her arms and spread
her out on the warm hood. "What house? To hell with his house, baby, you
set my house on fire, so come on in!"
Most Passionately Yours,
Mister Two Emmas