Two Paulettes: David Denby and James Wolcott

What was it like to hang out with The New Yorker’s great movie critic Pauline Kael? Two recent memoirs tell us: James Wolcott’s “Like Civilized People …” (in Lucking Out, 2011); and David Denby’s “Pauline Kael: A Great Critic and Her Circle” (in Do The Movies Have a Future?, 2012). It’s interesting to compare them.

Both pieces are deeply admiring, but avoid idolization. Wolcott says, “Much as I adored her, I didn’t want the godmother to have total jurisdiction.” Denby says,

Looking back, I’m happy that she wrote as well as she did for so many years – that was the most important thing she did for young critics who admired her and became part of her circle. I’m equally glad that she took me up in my mid-twenties when I was a nobody and that, for a while, we were friends. She may not have intended to do me a favor when she threw me out, but it was a favor nonetheless, since I might not have grown up for years if I had remained in that group.

Wolcott’s piece is juicier, more intimate, vibrant and wisecracking (more Kaelesque, you might say); Denby’s is more analytical. Wolcott is a dazzling metaphorist. Here, for example, is his description of Kael’s compositional process:

Entire paragraphs were x-ed out and new ones inserted, sentences were transposed within paragraphs that themselves were moved around like modular furniture, commas deliciously planted by The New Yorker’s notoriously comma-promiscuous copy department (resulting in sentences that resembled a higher plane of constipation, bogged down in late-period Henry James particularization) were plucked out and em dashes liberally thrown like left jabs.

That “comma-promiscuous copy department” is terrific.

Denby beautifully describes Kael’s writing style:

 As a writer, she had the natural beat of a good musician, alternating the tension and weight of a long sentence with the brutal quick jab of a short one. Her prose was so urgent and heated that a complexly argued piece seemed to burst forth in a single unbroken stream of words that combined sternly proper syntax with free-ranging, rowdy habits of phrasing. She was a master of informal rhetoric – the bullying mock question, the interjected taunt – and a great liberator of critical language, establishing the right, by means of charged rhythm and color, to speak one’s mind on the page as one might talk to one’s friends over a drink. She used slang, contractions, hype, insult, syncopated compound adjectives – anything for greater speed.

Both pieces capture Kael’s glorious profanity. “Oh, honey, you’ve never been fucked by a bear,” was one line she used, according to Denby, to snap argumentative protégés back to reality. Regarding Hollywood, Wolcott quotes her as saying, “Never underestimate how much those in power resent those with talent – talent being the one thing they can’t buy for themselves. But they never tire of fucking with it, that’s their talent.” Denby calls her “a good witch with a wicked tongue” and “as bawdy as a San Francisco madam.” He talks about her “insatiable need to win arguments.” Given her combativeness, I’ve always wondered why she didn’t rebut Renata Adler’s hatchet job, "The Perils of Pauline" (The New York Review of Books, August 14, 1980). Denby refers to it as a “notoriously wrongheaded piece.” But neither critic indicates why Kael chose to remain silent in the face of Adler’s vehement attack. My guess is that she didn’t want to get into a pissing war with a skunk.

Denby and Wolcott show Kael in a fascinating variety of settings: screening rooms, her New Yorker office, talk show, taxi cab, lunch, the Algonquin, her Central Park West apartment. My favorite passage is Wolcott’s description of her at her house:

She did her writing on the second floor of her house in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, bent over at a drawing table facing light-flooding windows looking out on her long, descending lawn to the road below. She wrote in pencil with a rubber thimble on her thumb, her phenomenal concentration pouring from the point of her pencil across the page as she followed the line of argument wherever it led, keeping every circuit open.

Kael was cruel to Denby. She told him, “You’re too restless to be a writer.” She said, “I’ve thought about this seriously, honey. You should do something else with your energy.” Denby was devastated. Who wouldn’t be? He says, “There was a heaviness in my chest and a slight roaring in my ears, as if a wave had knocked me over and the waters were swirling around my head." He eventually recovered. To his credit, he isn’t spiteful. He calls Kael “an astonishing woman.” He wrote in her obituary, published in the September 17, 2001 New Yorker, “In both abundance and quality, her work was a performance very likely without equal in the history of American journalism.”

Credit: The above photograph of Pauline Kael is by Chris Carroll.

Henry James's "The Portrait of a Lady": Lane v. Wood

It’s interesting to compare Anthony Lane’s "Out of the Frame" (The New Yorker, September 3, 2012) with James Wood’s "Perfuming the Money Issue" (London Review of Books, October 11, 2012). Both reviews give Henry James’s The Portrait of a Lady (1880) a startlingly fresh reading by exploring its sexual implications. But what I find even more interesting is the way Lane’s and Wood’s sexual views differ. Both critics see Portrait’s villain, Gilbert Osmond, as sexually creepy. Regarding James’s description of Osmond’s relationship with his daughter Pansy (“If he wished to make himself felt, there was soft and supple little Pansy, who would evidently respond to the slightest pressure”), Lane writes:

James omitted the line, and its surrounding passage, when he thoroughly revised the novel, in 1906, for the New York edition of his works (and thereby hangs another tale), yet the jolt of that earlier, unrefined image feels dreadfully suited to Osmond, for whom Humbertism, actual or threatened, would make a pleasing addition to his secret stash of sins.

Note that “pleasing.” Lane enjoys fictional evil. In his review of Ridley Scott’s Hannibal, he says, “When evil can do what it wants, the edge is taken off our fear and our sneaky sense of fun” (“Renaissance Man,” The New Yorker, February 12, 2001; included in his great Nobody’s Perfect, 2002). 

In contrast, Wood is less playful. He calls Osmond “the most frightening character in fiction.” He further says:

What makes The Portrait of a Lady such a strange book is its strongly felt attraction towards sex and its strongly felt recoil from it. Osmond’s seductive diabolism is surely, in large part erotic. The very structure of the novel is sickly and voyeuristic; a group of gazers, each with an erotic interest in her, circulates around Isabel. If you were to read the plot through the pornographic optic that it seems almost to dare, you would notice that some of them, like Caspar Goodwood and Lord Warburton, imagine themselves with her. Others, like Madam Merle and Henrietta, would like to watch her with someone else (Madame Merle wants to watch Osmond and Isabel, Henrietta wants to watch Caspar and Isabel).

Wood seems almost repelled by the sex he sees in Portrait through his “pornographic optic.” There’s certainly no “sneaky sense of fun” in his description of Osmond’s “seductive diabolism.”

Wood’s emphasis on Portrait’s sexual aspect appears to stem from his reading of Michael Gorra’s new study Portrait of a Novel: Henry James and the Making of an American Masterpiece. In his review, he mentions “Gorra, noting the sexual charge that frequently inhabits the prose.” On the other hand, Lane’s notion of a parallel between Osmond and Humbert Humbert is his own. Fourteen years ago, in his review of Adrian Lyne’s movie of Vladimir Nabokov’s splendid Lolita, he wrote, “One of Humbert’s more insidious crimes is to make you wonder what his gentlemanly forefathers may have done to their daughters; with Isabel out of the way, for instance, what cracks might Gilbert Osmond have inflicted on the porcelain virtue of Pansy?” (“Lo and Behold,” The New Yorker, February 23, 1998; collected in Nobody’s Perfect). 

Credit: The above artwork is John Singer Sargent's "Portrait of Henry James" (1913).

October 29 & November 5, 2012 Issue

There are two very different narrative methods on display in this week’s issue. Dexter Filkins’s brilliant “Atonement” uses first-person narration. George Packer’s equally brilliant “Washington Man” uses third-person narration. First-person narration strikes me as more reliable, and I generally prefer it. I am speaking here solely with respect to factual writing, not fiction. As Russell Baker observed in his essay on A. J. Liebling (“A Great Reporter at Large,” The New York Review of Books, November 18, 2004), “Liebling was almost always present in his reporting. It is a way of treating readers with respect. A glimpse of the party who is doing the reporting helps the reader judge how far he can be trusted.” Filkins’s remarkable piece is almost a form of memoir. It’s about an Iraq veteran named Lu Lobello and his quest for absolution from the Kachadoorian family, three of whom were killed by Lobello’s unit in a chaotic Baghdad firefight. Lobello contacted Nora Kachadoorian, whom he remembered from the battle, on Facebook. He also contacted Filkins who’d written about the Kachadoorians’ tragedy in the New York Times and asked him to arrange a meeting with the family. “Atonement” is Filkins’s firsthand account of that meeting. It’s a tremendously moving piece that cuts from the present (Lobello’s search for the Kachadoorians) to the past (Lobello and Filkins in Baghdad, 2003) and back to the present (Lobello and Filkins visiting Margaret and Nora Kachadoorian in La Jolla). One of its most interesting aspects is Filkins’s attempt to fathom what happened during “the firefight on Baladiyat Street.” He writes, “It is difficult to know exactly what happened on April 8, 2003. But, as I talked to the Kachadoorians and Lobello, and a half a dozen other members of Fox Company, it became clear that things were far worse than anyone had acknowledged at first.” “Atonement” contains and conveys not only Lobello’s story, but also Filkins’s pursuit of that story. As Richard Brody recently said of Jia Zhanghki’s 24 City, “it has its footnotes built into it” (“Ben Affleck’s Argo and Hollywood Nostalgia,” “The Front Row,” newyorker.com, October 12, 2012).

In contrast, George Packer’s “Washington Man” is a classic example of what Brody calls “external storytelling.” It’s written with superb authority, but the author doesn’t enter into it. Packer doesn’t use the first person pronoun even once. It’s a profile of Washington insider Jeff Connaughton. Except for the occasional “As Connaughton later wrote” and “As Connaughton recalled,” Packer rarely indicates his sources. Most of the story appears to have come directly from Connaughton. Packer’s identification with Connaughton’s point of view is extremely close. So close that Packer, at times, seems to be writing free indirect speech. For example, Packer writes,

One day in August, he was channel-flipping when Glenn Beck came on, telling an immense crowd on the Mall that change didn’t come from Washington; it came from real people in real places around the country. Beck was an asshole, but Arianna Huffington wrote the same thing in a column two days later. They were right.

Who owns these words – Packer or Connaughton? It’s Packer who’s writing them, but it sounds like Connaughton. The passage is an example of free indirect speech. It’s the first time I’ve seen it used in a New Yorker profile. I’m not sure its use should be encouraged. Packer’s words seem to have become inflected by his subject’s. Does he think Beck is an asshole? Does he think Beck and Huffington were right? Or is he simply reporting what Connaughton thinks? It’s unclear.

That said, I confess I found “Washington Man” irresistible. Even though it’s a long piece, I couldn’t stop reading until I finished it. It’s an exciting, vivid, inside story about how Washington has been captured by the “money power.” Packer’s/Connaughton’s view that “One fastball at Wall Street’s chin – a few top executives going to jail – could have had more effect than all the regulations combined” is my view. I silently cheered as I read it.

Love in John Updike's "Couples"

David Foster Wallace, in his “Certainly The End Of Something Or Other, One Would Sort Of Have To Think” (Consider the Lobster, 2006), writes that Rabbit Angstrom, Dick Maple, Piet Hanema, and Henry Bech, among other John Updike protagonists, “never really love anybody – and, though always heterosexual to the point of satyriasis, they especially don’t love women.” I can’t comment on the accuracy of this remark as it relates to Angstrom, Maple, and Bech because I’m not sufficiently familiar with them. But with regard to Couples's Piet Hanema, who I feel I know reasonably well, I submit that Wallace is wrong. Wallace doesn’t say what he means by “love.” In a footnote appended to the above “satyriasis” quote, he says, “Unless, of course, you consider delivering long encomiums to a woman’s ‘sacred several-lipped gateway’ or saying things like ‘It is true, the sight of her plump lips obediently distended around my swollen member, her eyelids lowered demurely, afflicts me with religious peace’ to mean the same as loving.” No, that’s not my idea of love, and I don’t think it is Updike’s either. Updike subscribed to an intensely romantic notion of love, as represented by the legend of Tristan and Iseult, in which, as he says in his pivotal essay “More Love in the Western World” (The New Yorker, August 24, 1963; Assorted Prose, 1965), “passion-love feeds upon denial.” In this piece, he refers to Denis de Rougemont’s Love in the Western World (1956) as follows:

Unlike most accretions of learning and intelligence, Love in the Western World has the unity of an idea, an idea carried through a thousand details but ultimately single and simple, an idea that, however surprising its route of arrival, strikes home. Love as we experience it is love for the Unattainable Lady, the Iseult who is “ever a stranger, the very essence of what is strange in woman and of all that is eternally fugitive, vanishing, and almost hostile in a fellow-being, that which indeed incites to pursuit, and rouses in the heart of a man who has fallen a prey to the myth an avidity for possession so much more delightful than possession itself. She is the woman-from-whom-one-is-parted; to possess her is to lose her.”

In Couples, Piet Hanema’s Iseult is Foxy Whitman. Consider, for example, the scene in which Piet is in bed with his wife, Angela. She’s asleep, but he’s “horribly awake.” Updike writes:

Angela obliviously stirred, faintly moaned. Piet got out of bed and went downstairs for a glass of milk. Whenever he was most lovesick for Foxy, that summer, he would go to the refrigerator, the cool pale box full of illuminated food, and feed something to the void within. He leaned his cheek against the machine’s cold cheek and thought of her voice, its southern shadows, its playful dryness, its musical remembrance of his genitals. He spelled her name with the magnetized alphabet the girls played with on the tall blank door. FOXY. PIET L VES FOXY. He scrambled the letters and traveled to bed again through a house whose familiar furniture and wallpaper were runes charged with malevolent magic. Beside Angela, he thought that if he were beside Foxy he could fall asleep on broken glass. Insomnia a failure of alignment.  

That is love – romantic love straight out of Tristan and Iseult, as channeled by John Updike. And near the novel’s end, after Piet and Foxy have reunited, there’s Updike’s clinching observation: “he was not tempted to touch her in this house they had so often violated; her presence as she breezed from room to room felt ghostly, impervious; and already they had lost that prerogative of lovers which claims all places as theirs.” The Unattainable Lady has become attained, and since “passion-love feeds upon denial,” the “prerogative of lovers which claims all places as theirs” has been lost. But implicit in this is that there was passion-love to lose. David Foster Wallace’s claim that Piet Hanema doesn’t love women overlooks this vital implication.   

October 22, 2012 Issue

Pick of the Issue (POTI) this week is a contest between four pieces: Nick Paumgarten’s “Less Europe,” John Seabrook’s “Grand,” Evan Osnos’s “Boss Rail,” and Peter Schjeldahl’s “Challenging Work.” Paumgarten’s “Less Europe” is a Talk story about a “Euroskeptic” named Nigel Farage. It contains this inspired sentence: “He has a smoker’s marbly laugh and tawny skin, and, as he credibly claims, ‘relatively hollow legs,’ into which, at the reception, he poured a fair amount of gin.” Seabrook’s piece, also a Talk story, is a mini-profile of Iris Dement, “one of the brightest talents in the new alt-country genre.” It describes Dement’s recent visit to Steinway Hall (“Steinway Hall has the ponderous stillness of a funeral home, and the grand pianos are like polished caskets”). Osnos’s piece explores how a high-speed train wreck in Wenzhou, China “became what Hurricane Katrina was to Americans: the iconic failure of government performance.” It’s best part is the penultimate section, wonderfully narrated in the first-person, in which Osnos, accompanied by a tunnel builder named Li Xue, takes us inside a tunnel that Xue is constructing in “the rocky hills of Hebei Province.” Osnos writes,

Li spat into the mud and handed me a hard hat. Inside, the tunnel was cool and dark, about thirty feet high, with a smooth ceiling, faintly lit by work lights along the edges. Li had dug ten tunnels in his life, and this would be the longest – two miles end to end.

Schjeldahl’s “Challenging Work” is a review of a Ai Weiwei retrospective at the Hirshorn Museum, in Washington. Regarding photographs of Ai “dropping a millennia-old Han-dynasty urn, which smashes on the floor,” Schjeldahl says, “The act strikes me as mere vandalism.” I agree. Schjeldahl's bluntness is tonic. And the winner of this week’s POTI is Nick Paumgarten's "Less Europe" for its marvelous “He has a smoker’s marbly laugh and tawny skin, and, as he credibly claims, ‘relatively hollow legs,’ into which, at the reception, he poured a fair amount of gin.” 

Interesting Emendations: James Merrill's "Palm Beach with Portuguese Man-Of-War"

Loving a poem only for its opening lines is a bit like loving a woman only for her gorgeous eyes. The focus is narrow but very intense. This describes my relationship with James Merrill’s extraordinary “Palm Beach with Portuguese Man-Of-War,” which I first encountered in the January 17, 1977 issue of The New Yorker. Its opening stanza is, for me, narcotic:

A mile-long vertebrate picked clean

To the palms’ tall seableached incurving ribs

No more vivid word picture of a beach has ever been written, at least not in such concentrated, evocative form. The image of the beach as a “vertebrate picked clean” is inspired, and the description of the palms’ “tall seableached incurving ribs” is ravishing.

Interestingly, when Merrill included this poem in his 1985 collection Late Settings, he changed it. The opening lines read:

A mile-long vertebrate picked clean

To lofty-plumed seableached incurving ribs

The second line has been revised - “lofty-plumed” replaces “the palms’ tall.” Is the change an improvement? I’m not certain. “Lofty-plumed” strikes me as a shade decorative. What comes to mind when I read it are hats, not palms. I like the simpler “the palms’ tall seableached incurving ribs” – its plainness is consistent with the “picked clean” beach of the first line. And the rhythm of “ To the palms’ tall seableached incurving ribs” is smoother than “To lofty-plumed seableached incurving ribs.” The hyphenated “lofty-plumed” introduces a couple of extra beats that jars the line’s music – to my ear, anyway.

I’m not sure what “Palm Beach with Portuguese Man-of-War” is about. Helen Vendler, in her review of Late Settings, calls it “an elegy of sorts for Merrill’s wealthy thrice-married father” (“James Merrill,” The Music of What Happens, 1988). She refers to its “anatomy of tycoons, their female hangers-on, their sexual forays, their eventual toombs.” This interpretation seems reasonable. It certainly helps make sense of words such as “razor labia of hangers-on” and “tiny hideous tycoon.” It’s not a joyful poem. Vendler says, “Hatred and pity coexist in this impersonal elegy.” But its description – particularly those concise, consummate opening lines in the New Yorker version - is exquisite.

Credit: The above photograph of James Merrill is by Rollie McKenna.

October 15, 2012 Issue

What do W. G. Sebald and Tom Wolfe have in common? Very little. Sebald’s style is flat; Wolfe’s is hyperactive. Sebald is an elegist; Wolfe is a provocateur. About the only connection between them is that they’re among the handful of writers that James Wood has reviewed more than once. Wood loves Sebald’s writing; he hates Wolfe’s. In his ““Tom Wolfe’s Shallowness, and the Trouble with Information” (The Irresponsible Self, 2004), he describes Wolfe’s prose as “ordinary,” “vulgar,” “gale-force,” “monstrously melodramatic,” “no capacity for simile or metaphor,” “grotesquerie,” “bumptious simplicity.”  And in “Muscle-Bound,” in the current issue of the magazine, his critique of Wolfe’s writing is even more derisive (“pumped-up,” “steroidal,” “blaring,” “irritatingly bouncy,” “a big-circus broadcast,” “spoiled music,” “revelling in its own grossly muscular power, its own cheap riches”).  However, both of Wood’s Wolfe pieces contain tiny sweet spots, momentary pauses in the onslaught of invective, when Wood veers close to actually saying something positive about Wolfe’s prose. For example, in “Tom Wolfe’s Shallowness, and the Trouble with Information,” Wood says, “Sometimes the reportage is so good, the rendition so faithful, and the speech so strange, that a genuine power flickers on the page.” But this compliment quickly dissolves and Wood resumes his rant. Similarly, in “Muscle-Bound,” Wood briefly halts his attack just long enough to insert this beauty: “Very occasionally in this novel, Wolfe gives evidence that he knows the difference between those French prunes and ‘Hotchkiss, Yale … six-three.’” Sound enigmatic? It is, beautifully so, especially if considered as a stand-alone sentence. But viewed in context, it makes perfect sense. And it provides entry into a wonderful gloss on Wood’s philosophy of detail, which I think may turn out to be his most lasting contribution to literary criticism (see the brilliant chapter titled “Detail” in his How Fiction Works, 2008). 

Interesting Emendations: Joseph Mitchell's "Mr. Hunter's Grave"

There are two versions of Joseph Mitchell’s classic “Mr. Hunter’s Grave.” One appeared in The New Yorker, September 22, 1956. The other is included in Mitchell’s great 1992 collection Up in the Old Hotel. The two versions are very similar. Where they differ is in the description of the weeds and wildflowers covering the graves in Sandy Ground cemetery. In the New Yorker version, Mitchell wrote:

A scattering of the newer graves were fairly clean, but most of them were thickly covered with weeds, wild flowers and ferns. There were easily a hundred kinds. Among those that I could identify were milkweed, knotweed, ragweed, Jimson weed, pavement weed, chickweed, joe-pye weed, wood aster, lamb’s quarters, plantain, catchfly, Jerusalem oak, bedstraw, goldenrod, cocklebur, chicory, butter-and-eggs, thistle, dandelion, selfheal, Mexican tea, stinging nettle, bouncing Bet, mullein, touch-me-not, partridge pea, beggar’s-lice, sandspur, wild garlic, wild mustard, wild geranium, may apple, old-field cinquefoil, cinnamon fern, New York fern, lady fern, and maiden-hair fern. Some of the graves had rusty iron-pipe fences around them.

In the Up in the Old Hotel version, the passage is changed:

A scattering of the newer graves were fairly clean, but most of them were thickly covered with weeds and wild flowers and ferns. There were scores of kinds. The majority were the common kinds that grow in waste places and in dumps and in vacant lots and in old fields and beside roads and ditches and railroad tracks, and I could recognize them at a glance. Among these were milkweed, knotweed, ragweed, Jimson weed, pavement weed, catchfly, Jerusalem oak, bedstraw, goldenrod, cocklebur, butter-and-eggs, dandelion, bouncing Bet, mullein, partridge pea, beggar’s-lice, sandspur, wild garlic, wild mustard, wild geranium, rabbit tobacco, old-field cinquefoil, bracken, New York fern, cinnamon fern, and lady fern. A good many of the others were unfamiliar to me, and I broke off the heads and upper branches of a number of these and stowed them in the pockets of my jacket, to look at later under a magnifying glass. Some of the graves had rusty iron-pipe fences around them.

Notice the deletion of chickweed, joe-pye weed, wood aster, lamb’s quarters, plantain, chicory, thistle, selfheal, Mexican tea, stinging nettle, touch-me-not, may apple, and maiden-hair fern from the later version. Also note the addition of rabbit tobacco and bracken, and the addition of “A good many of the others were unfamiliar to me, and I broke off the heads and upper branches of a number of these and stowed them in the pockets of my jacket, to look at later under a magnifying glass.” 

The list of weeds, wildflowers, and ferns is one of the most beautiful passages in the piece. Why did Mitchell change it? I think he was trying to be more accurate. He wasn’t comfortable with the impression he conveyed in The New Yorker version that he was able to identify all those plants on the spot. In the Up in the Old Hotel version, he takes pains to specify only those plants that he was actually able to identify when he was at the graves. The plants that he deleted are likely the ones that he later identified when, as he says in the second version, he had the use of a magnifying glass. All of this is pure conjecture on my part. He might’ve made the deletions simply because he felt the list was too long. But that doesn’t account for the addition of the line about “many of the others were unfamiliar to me,” and so on. Some of the stories in Up in the Old Hotel are fictional; some are factual. “Mr. Hunter’s Grave” is factual. Mitchell makes this clear in the “Author’s Note.” Unlike some of today’s writers of fact pieces, Mitchell believed in painstaking accuracy. His tweaking of his list of weeds, wildflowers and ferns in his masterpiece “Mr. Hunter’s Grave” is, I submit, an example of his conscientious effort to be as accurate as possible.  

David Denby's "Do the Movies Have a Future?"

David Denby’s “Influencing People” (The New Yorker, October 4, 2010) is one of the best movie reviews I’ve ever read – where best means descriptive, analytical, artful, exhilarating. I blogged about it here, when it first appeared, in a post titled “The Social Network: Denby v. Smith v. Wood.” Now I see that Denby has included a version of it in his new book Do the Movies Have a Future? The book version is called “David Fincher and The Social Network.” Comparing it with the New Yorker piece, I note a number of interesting changes. Here, for example, is the New Yorker version’s tracing of the movie’s subtlety:

Yet, no matter how quickly the film moves, Fincher, working with the editors Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall, pauses within the fast tempo

and lets the emotional power of the moment expand. Relying on nothing more than tiny shifts of emphasis and inflection, the director, to an amazing degree, makes us care about the split between the unyielding Zuckerberg and Saverin, who’s a decent guy but unimaginative and perhaps a little timid.

Now here’s the book version:

Yet no matter how quickly the film moves, Fincher, working with the editors Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall, pauses within the fast tempo and, like a great opera conductor, lets the emotional power of the moment expand. The emotion is produced not so much by emphasis as by extreme precision – tiny shifts of inflection (a hesitation, a glance, a lowered voice); even the actors playing the lawyers add their bit of nuance to what might have been routine scenes of questioning and badgering. In the end, to an amazing degree, Fincher makes us care about the split between two college buddies, Zuckerberg and Saverin, tender friends who understood each other about as well as highly competitive young men ever do. Poor Eduardo! He’s a decent guy but unimaginative and perhaps a little timid.

Notice that the observation about the reliance “on nothing more than tiny shifts of emphasis,” in the New Yorker piece, has been reconsidered. Denby now says, “the emotion is produced not so much by emphasis as by extreme precision.” And he goes on to explain what he means by “extreme precision” – “tiny shifts of inflection (a hesitation, a glance, a lowered voice).” His commentary deepens my appreciation of the movie, as does his point about “even the actors playing the lawyers add their bit of nuance to what might have been routine scenes of questioning and badgering.”

Most of the changes that Denby has made to his great review are minor (e.g., to the line, “The truth, Fincher seems to be saying, is best approached with data, impressions, and interpretations,” he adds a semi-colon and says, “there’s no final way of knowing anything”). But there’s one passage that’s been substantially rewritten. It’s regarding the film's accuracy. Here’s the New Yorker version:

The debate about the movie’s accuracy has already begun, but Fincher and Sorkin, selecting from known facts and then freely interpreting them, have created a work of art. Accuracy is now a secondary issue.

Here’s the book version:

 A debate about the movie’s accuracy has already begun: Doesn’t the actual Zuckerberg have a girlfriend? Is it fair to portray him as arrogant and isolated? And so on. But Fincher and Sorkin, selecting from known facts and then freely interpreting them, have created an irresistibly entertaining work of art that’s infinitely suggestive of the way personal relations are evolving – or devolving – in the Internet Age. Spiritual accuracy, not literal accuracy, is what matters, and that kind of accuracy can be created only by artists.

I agree with Denby’s opinion that The Social Network is a work of art. However, I question his statement, in the New Yorker piece, that “Accuracy is now a secondary issue.” Painstaking accuracy is, for me, a hallmark of great art (think Vermeer, Nabokov, Scorsese). The fact that he deletes this remark from the book version of the review indicates he’s uncomfortable with it, too. But the statement he replaces it with – “Spiritual accuracy, not literal accuracy, is what matters” – is no less problematical. I don’t want to sound moralistic about this, but it seems to me that a movie that purports to tell the life story of a real person should stick to the facts. As Pauline Kael said in her review of Ken Russell’s The Music Lovers, “There is no higher truth than respecting facts” (“Genius,” in her 1973 collection Deeper Into Movies). Denby’s distinction between spiritual accuracy and literal accuracy is slippery; it provides a rationale for biographical falsification.

The good news about the book version of Denby’s review of The Social Network is that it reproduces almost verbatim (there are a couple of minor tweaks) the brilliant passage in the New Yorker piece describing the movie’s visual style:

Despite the half craziness of the themes, the early Fincher movies have a visual distinction that makes them galvanic, irresistible. As critic Amy Taubin wrote, “No one comes close to Fincher’s control of movement in a frame and across a cut,” and I agree with that. Even Fincher’s patented junk and mess, first seen in “Alien 3” and then in the rubbishy, derelict rooms in “Se7en” and “Fight Club,” has a perversely attractive appeal, a glowing awfulness, as if it were lit from within. He doesn’t hide the disintegrating walls, the sordid beds; we are meant to see the ugly poetry in them. Whatever locations he uses, Fincher brings out their special character. At the beginning of “The Social Network,” Zuckerberg runs across the campus to his room at night, and Harvard, its many enclaves lit with intellectual industry, looks glamorous, like an enlivened imaginary city. The scenes of the Winklevosses in their boat, crisply cutting through the water, are ineffably beautiful; the twins are at ease in their bodies and in nature, while the Zuckerberg gang slouch over their computers in the kind of trashed rooms that Fincher’s anarchists and killers live in. The revolution brews amid garbage.

That “while the Zuckerberg gang slouch over their computers in the kind of trashed rooms that Fincher’s anarchists and killers live in” is superb! It’s tonic to see it preserved intact in Denby’s excellent collection.

October 8, 2012 Issue

Dan Chiasson, in his review of Brenda Shaughnessy’s new poetry collection Our Andromeda, in this week’s issue of the magazine, quotes several lines from Shaughnessy’s poem “Artless,” and says:

A rationed vocabulary, an imagination thinned by worry and obligation, a new consciousness of death (the “smoke/in the old smokehouse”), and, most of all, this strange antique music, like a dreamed stanza of Robert Herrick: these elements create the subsistence beauty of “Artless” and much of Shaughnessy’s new work.

That “subsistence beauty” is inspired! As a result of reading Chiasson’s review (titled "The Cild In Time"), I went back to "Artless" – it appears in the August 8, 2011 New Yorker – and took a close look at it. It is ingeniously structured: seventeen brief three-line stanzas, each line no more than four or five words in length, each stanza ending with a word containing “less” (e.g., “tartless,” roofless,” “bless,” “meatless”). In this intriguing poem, Shaughnessy professes artlessness (“No poetry. Plain”) as her aesthetic, but she does so in such an artful way that she undercuts her message. Her words are plain, but they’re also beautifully arranged and patterned. No poem worth the name is truly “artless.” What Shaughnessy means, I think, is a sublime of pared-down language (“less/substance, more rind”). Chiasson’s “subsistence beauty” describes it brilliantly.  

Interesting Emendations: Whitney Balliett's "New Coming"

I’m pleased to see Whitney Balliett quoted in Christopher Carroll’s excellent “The Sound of Sonny Rollins” (The New York Review of Books, September 27, 2012). The quotation, which is from an April 1, 1972 New Yorker piece, describes how Rollins blended the best elements of Coleman Hawkins and Charlie Parker. It reads as follows:

He extracted the muscle from Hawkins’ tone and left the velvet lopped off Hawkins’ famous vibrato, and sharpened Hawkins’ method of melodic playing by making it parodic. He learned Parker’s teeming disregard of bar lines, Parker’s way with rhythm (the oddly placed notes, the silences, the avalanches of thirty-second notes), and Parker’s trick of mixing surreal melodic passages with tumbling bursts of improvisation. And over all this he superimposed a unique and witty garrulity that made his immensely long solos seem, paradoxically, like endless strings of epigrams.

It’s a wonderfully vivid description. Interestingly, Balliett changed it when he included the piece (titled “New Coming”) in his great Collected Works (2000). Here’s the Collected Works version:

He extracted the muscle from Hawkins’ tone, lopped off Hawkins’ famous vibrato, and sharpened Hawkins’ method of melodic playing by parodying it. He learned Parker’s teeming disregard of bar lines, Parker’s way with rhythm (the oddly placed notes, the silences, the avalanches of sixteenth notes), and Parker’s trick of mixing surreal melodic passages with bursts of improvisation. And over all this he superimposed a witty garrulity that made his immensely long solos seem, paradoxically, like endless strings of epigrams.

Balliett deleted “and left the velvet,” changed “making it parodic” to “parodying it,” changed “thirty-second notes” to “sixteenth notes,” and deleted “tumbling” and “unique.” The Collected Works version is leaner. But I confess I miss that evocative “left the velvet lopped off” in the New Yorker article. Nevertheless, the Collected Works piece is the final version. It’s likely the one that Balliett would want quoted.  

Notes on John McPhee's "Irons in the Fire"

I went camping last week and took John McPhee’s 1997 collection Irons in the Fire with me. In between setting up the tent, rolling out the sleeping bags, walking, cycling, taking lots of pictures, and generally just hanging out here and there along Maine’s amazing coast, I read the title piece. It proved to be an excellent travel companion. It’s an account of McPhee’s journeys in Nevada with a cattle brand inspector named Chris Collis. I vaguely recall seeing it when it appeared in The New Yorker (December 20, 1993). But it didn’t make nearly the impression on me that it made last week when I read it. It’s a wonderful piece. Particularly notable aspects are:

·     The Ellie Wyeth Fox drawings of cattle brands (e.g., Reverse B Hanging P, Rocking Arrow, Lazy Spiked E) that are incorporated into the text, including the Lazy J Over Running M Combined on the book cover that Fox specially created for McPhee.

·     McPhee’s glorious use of present tense (e.g., “Now Gordon Eldridge, in Spring Valley, reaches into a shirt pocket and removes a small ledger containing the license numbers and the makes of unknown vehicles that he has seen in the valley since who knows when,” “Twenty-five miles down the valley, in the late slanting light, Chris turns in at Lonne Gubler’s Cleveland Ranch, where Cleve Creek comes out of the mountains and productively waters the basin,” “A new moon has come into the sky, a standing sliver, right off their brand,” “Soon after daybreak on a cold October morning, sprinkler fields are frozen in Steptoe Valley”).

·     His detailed, vivid descriptions of ranching procedure, e.g., roping (“The horse, turning, keeps the rope taut and drags the calf to the fire. At the fire, the horse turns again to face the calf, backing up to keep the line taut”), branding (“While Gerry keeps the rope taut and his mom continues to kneel on the calf, his dad, on foot, takes an iron from the fire and causes a puff of smoke to rise from the calf’s right hip”), earmarking (“Chris folds the right ear. Into the crease he cuts a semicircle, making a hole in the center of the ear. He moves the blade from the hole through the pink flesh to the point of the ear – a longitudinal slit – as if he were cutting fruit”), castration (“He slices off the tip of the scrotum as if he were scissoring the tip of a cigar. He squeezes into the light the pearl-gray glistening ellipsoid oysters”). The use of those scientific adjectives (“longitudinal,” “ellipsoid”) is pure McPhee. It’s what separates his work from that of other great describers such as Ian Frazier and Edward Hoagland.

·     His artful similes (e.g., “In the great treeless valleys, pickups, with their wakes of dust, stand out like speedboats,” “Out in the flats, coyotes are wailing like theft alarms”).

·     The specificity (and poetics) of naming, e.g., cattle breeds (Black Angus, Angus-Hereford, Brangus, Charolais, Simbrah), geography (Schell Creek Range, White River Valley, Wheeler Peak, Little Fish Lake Valley, Kawich Mountains, Steptoe Valley, Camel Peak, Burnt Canyon, Duck Creek Range, Diamond Range, Red Bluff Spring, Railroad Valley, Sawmill Canyon), cattle brands (Lazy E Over P, Quarter Circle Standing Quarter Circle, JY Bar Connected, Cross L Combined, Long Tailed B, Quarter Circle Flying V Bar).

·     This ravishing Rauschenberg-like verbal combine: “The buyer has a dish antenna, and sits at home watching videotaped cattle in the egret flats of Alvin, Texas, on the Red River plain of Louisiana, against the velvet greens of Jane Lew, West Virginia, and back to the pasture of Easterly, Texas, where mahogany steers against a stand of trees are up to their hocks in grass.”

I enjoyed “Irons in the Fire” immensely. There’s another piece in the collection that I haven’t read. It’s called “The Gravel Page.” I’m saving it for my next camping trip.