Ellis Sharp begins a note on the late Saul Bellow by admitting that he prefers Norman Mailer. Despite their differences, they had things in common, he says. This pricked my interest as I’ve not read Mailer beyond the first embarrassing pages of Ancient Evenings, and wondered what they were. But it seems they similarities of political development.
Sharp despises Bellow’s political opinions in later life. So do I. But these have little to do with the novels. Do we talk about Dostoevsky’s novels only in relation to the fact that he was a virulent anti-Semite and anti-Catholic and also hated Muslims and Turks? No, of course not. These are more or less forgotten. It’s still shocking of course, as are Bellow’s opinions as revealed in To Jerusalem and Back, but they are in marked contrast to the experience of reading the novels; his and Dostoevsky's.
What makes Dostoevsky a great novelist, and what make Bellow a great novelist too, is that he placed various antagonistic attitudes and opinions in relation to each other, that is in dialogue with each other. Bakhtin brought this out rather a long while ago.
The critics can go on about the energy of Bellow’s prose, its biblical cadences, and the great, piercing comedy of it all, but what makes Bellow great does not require such things, just as energy, beauty and comedy doesn’t guarantee it (fans of Martin Amis please note).
It is a mark of the limitations of current popular literary criticism that the obituaries speak only of such confections, wrongheaded ancestry and extra-literary politics.
Britain's first book blogger (November 2000)
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blogroll, etc.
Blogroll continued
- Flowerville
- Cannon Magazine
- Wittgenstein Jr
- Danny Byrne
- Marooned Off Vesta
- In lieu of a field guide
- Just William's Luck
- Vertigo (WG Sebald blog)
- Tales from the Reading Room
- The Goalie's Anxiety
- Infinite Patience
- Pechorin's Journal
- Time's Flow Stemmed
- 50 Watts
- The Philosophical Worldview Artist
- Known Unknowns
- The Age of Uncertainty
- Being in Lieu
- ads without products
- Rejectamentalist Manifesto
- TLS editors' blog
- Braingrass
- Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
- The Bibliophilic Blogger
- Nomadics
- Life Unfurnished
Favoured author sites
Political
Blog Archive
- April 2013 (1)
- March 2013 (2)
- February 2013 (1)
- January 2013 (1)
- November 2012 (2)
- August 2012 (1)
- July 2012 (1)
- June 2012 (1)
- May 2012 (3)
- March 2012 (3)
- February 2012 (1)
- January 2012 (1)
- November 2011 (1)
- October 2011 (2)
- September 2011 (2)
- July 2011 (3)
- June 2011 (1)
- May 2011 (3)
- April 2011 (5)
- March 2011 (3)
- February 2011 (1)
- January 2011 (2)
- December 2010 (7)
- November 2010 (1)
- October 2010 (5)
- September 2010 (2)
- August 2010 (3)
- July 2010 (4)
- June 2010 (2)
- May 2010 (3)
- April 2010 (4)
- March 2010 (11)
- February 2010 (3)
- December 2009 (3)
- November 2009 (5)
- October 2009 (5)
- September 2009 (3)
- August 2009 (6)
- July 2009 (6)
- June 2009 (4)
- May 2009 (8)
- April 2009 (8)
- March 2009 (12)
- February 2009 (11)
- January 2009 (7)
- December 2008 (7)
- November 2008 (7)
- October 2008 (17)
- September 2008 (7)
- August 2008 (8)
- July 2008 (7)
- June 2008 (7)
- May 2008 (7)
- April 2008 (5)
- March 2008 (8)
- February 2008 (2)
- January 2008 (10)
- December 2007 (26)
- November 2007 (28)
- October 2007 (16)
- September 2007 (24)
- August 2007 (15)
- July 2007 (17)
- June 2007 (11)
- May 2007 (23)
- April 2007 (11)
- March 2007 (24)
- February 2007 (27)
- January 2007 (21)
- December 2006 (9)
- November 2006 (23)
- October 2006 (21)
- September 2006 (19)
- August 2006 (15)
- July 2006 (33)
- June 2006 (17)
- May 2006 (24)
- April 2006 (17)
- March 2006 (18)
- February 2006 (15)
- January 2006 (8)
- December 2005 (8)
- November 2005 (10)
- October 2005 (7)
- September 2005 (14)
- August 2005 (14)
- July 2005 (8)
- June 2005 (15)
- May 2005 (11)
- April 2005 (12)
- March 2005 (9)
- February 2005 (7)
- January 2005 (15)
- December 2004 (2)
- November 2004 (4)
- October 2004 (6)
- September 2004 (2)
Contact steve dot mitchelmore at gmail.com. Powered by Blogger.
Dear Stephen
ReplyDeleteHello. I have enjoyed reading your blog, and just wanted to comment on this post. You say,
It is a mark of the limitations of current popular literary criticism that the obituaries speak only of such confections, wrongheaded ancestry and extra-literary politics
I agree with you, and am glad you make this argument. It is important to keep this in mind, or else literature will become an adjunct to other issues, and the novel, and literature in general is relegated, made of secondary importance, becomes a zero sum morality game.
However, I do believe that Bellow's prejudices were of a much lesser order than Dostoevsky's, who believed in and promoted the blood libel, that Jews murdered Christian children in order to drink their blood during Passover.
In an essay written in 1955 called ‘The French as Dostoevsky Saw Them’, Bellow writes,
Some of Dostoevsky’s strictures repelled me by their harshness. He is disagreeable as only a great radical can be. Recalling how evasive he had been when the czar’s soldiers killed Polish patriots, I disliked his Slavophile notions, And then, too, a Jewish reader can seldom forget Dostoevsky’s anti-Semitism.
The essay is a nuanced reading of Dostoevsky’s life and work, and apart from this, there is no mention of the hatred and bigotry that existed inside the Russian writer that would have been dispensed on Bellow himself as the son of Russian Jews. He acknowledges it, then moves on, does not dwell on it, and engages deeply with the work itself. In the final paragraph, in reference to The Brothers Karamazov, he writes:
To answer artistically is to do full justice, to respect propositions and harmonies with which journalists and polemicists do not have to bother their heads. In the novel, Dostoevsky cannot permit himself to yield to cruel, intemperate, and arbitrary judgments. The writer’s convictions, perhaps fanatically held, must be tamed by truth.
The degree to which you challenge your own beliefs and expose them to destruction is a test of your worth as a novelist.
I think that final sentence should be thought on by certain people, those who wish the writer’s art, and life, to be hygienic, bleached, untroubled and correct. They misunderstand what the novel achieves, and what the true writer strives for: to examine the dirt and mud of the soul.