Search Deeblog
This list does not yet contain any items.
Navigate through Deeblog
Login
Wednesday
Apr032013

Goethe, "Abschied"

A work ("Farewell") by this German man of letters.  You can read the original here.

Unsated, I a thousand kisses nurse; 
Upon the thousandth and one must we part.
O deepest pain, O separation's curse, 
'Twas this dark shore from which I rent my heart.

Blue mountains, hillocks, rivers, huts behold!
Horizons stretch in joy, a treasure pure; 
For my eyes then a feast remained too sure: 
Let darkness clear and distant truth unfold.

At length, as seas our vista ring and close, 
Most warm desire retakes my wretched heart; 
And, peevish, I anew seek what I lost. 

As if the heavens shone, yet at no cost 
To me, for missed I would have not one part, 
As if all once enjoyed again arose.  

Thursday
Mar282013

Pale Fire

What is posterity? Those who come after us, after our earthbound existence has ceased. Why does the true writer of genius dream only of posterity? Because he knows only the hack and the huckster compose with an eye to contemporary fame. Why do writers evoke the past? Second-raters evoke the past because they wish to associate their feeble prose with some historical event, as if death during a global war and death in a small village that has always known peace and prosperity could be distinguished by mourners; first-raters introduce the past because it is through the prism of youth's nostalgia, of our feelings of immortality, that the present and future become everlastingly tragic. What is immortality? For the non-believer, a myth; for the believer, and all great writers are by nature believers, the destiny of the human soul because literature is the history of the human soul. Why are all great writers believers? Because the writer of genius composes for his posthumous triumph; for his resurrection from some cavernal archives centuries after the hand, and arm, and body, and head that created those works have been destroyed; for the ideal reader who will finally bestow upon him the reading he has always sought, the reading that will properly reflect the parameters of his art and his genius. What is art? Art, as this author once said, is beauty and pity. Which brings us to one of the most spectacular novels ever written.     

Our hero is American poet John Shade, but he is dead. He will die twice, as well as incur one near-death experience during which time a "white fountain" will appear to his blood-blanched brain, an event which a doctor denies (odd, since doctors deny everything except death), but which will lend itself to the execution of a long and lucid 999-line poem in heroic couplets. In search of a confederate similarly grazed by the scythe, he tracks down an interviewee from a famous article who also dreamed a "white fountain"; upon their sharing some feckless tea and chatter, however, he learns she was misquoted, and that what she beheld during those two minutes of her clinical extinction was in fact a "white mountain." Shade does not desist from his reflections: his orphaning as an infant; the suicide of his only child Hazel upon an icy lake and after years of societal non-acceptance; his own weariness, wheezing bulk, and, apart from longish "sunset rambles," complete lack of concern for his physical well-being; and his deference to his wife, muse, support beam, and literary amanuensis, Sybil. Shade describes birds and butterflies with equal hand, but his verse aggregates in depth upon its posthumous edition: 

Immediately after my dear friend's death I prevailed upon his distraught widow to forelay and defeat the commercial passions and academic intrigues that were bound to come swirling around her husband's manuscript (transferred by me to a safe spot even before his body had reached the grave) by signing an agreement to the effect that he had turned over the manuscript to me; that I would have it published without delay, with my commentary, by a firm of my choice; that all profits, except the publisher's percentage, would accrue to her; and that on publication day the manuscript would be handed over to the Library of Congress for permanent preservation. I defy any serious critic to find this contract unfair. Nevertheless, it has been called (by Shade's former lawyer) "a fantastic farrago of evil," while another person (his former literary agent) has wondered with a sneer if Mrs. Shade's tremulous signature might not have been penned "in some peculiar kind of red ink." Such hearts, such brains, would be unable to comprehend that one's attachment to a masterpiece may be utterly overwhelming, especially when it is the underside of the weave that entrances the beholder and only begetter, whose own past intercoils there with the fate of the innocent author.

The usurper is a certain Charles Kinbote, a colleague of Shade's at Wordsworth College, and, we learn soon enough, a man bent  in, ahem, more ways than one  on drawing our collective attention to happenings far past the ken of the average resident of the "small college town" of New Wye. What events could garner such appeal for a polyglot professor of comparative literature, a European intellectual, very late of Europe (so late, in fact, that his own position and familiarity with said college town strike us as suspiciously thorough)? Nothing less, as it were, than an attempted regicide (Kinbote's alleged meaning in its native language) in a distant, beautiful "crystal land."  

The "crystal land" in question is Zembla, a name which will evoke a smile on a Frenchman's face and a smirk on a Russian's. Kinbote is impassioned by three things, in no particular order: the plight of his King, Charles the Beloved, who fled assured execution at the hands of left-wing insurgents and has since made his paths to lands unknown; literature in all its most glorious manifestations, from this poet's saturated globs (globs, in any case, of genius), to English writers of clipped, clean, and often magnificent prose (they know who they are), to the shimmering waves of the Bard himself; and the lean, sweaty energy of male youths fourteen and over, the acme of their virile charms coming during their college years. The latter two pursuits are just that, hunts of endless quarry, bountiful harvests, and daydreams of passions that quiver in a cool springtime wind. It is the first and most recondite of tales, the flight of Charles II, with the help of (literally and figuratively) various actors, through France, where he bids his farewells to his unabashedly ignored queen Disa, and onwards to some other terrestrial nook, that becomes our narrative's compass and chart. And soon enough, Kinbote's comments disenshroud these forking paths, one of which begins decidedly to resemble a cul-de-sac:

There was something else, something I was to realize only when I read Pale Fire, or rather reread it after the first bitter hot mist of disappointment had cleared before my eyes. I am thinking of lines 261-267 in which Shade describes his wife. At the moment of his painting that poetical portrait, the sitter was twice the age of Queen Disa. I do not wish to be vulgar in dealing with these delicate matters but the fact remains that sixty-year-old Shade is lending here a well-conserved coeval the ethereal and eternal aspect she retains, or should retain, in his kind, noble heart. Now the curious thing about it is that Disa at thirty, when last seen in September 1958, bore a singular resemblance not, of course, to Mrs. Shade as she was when I met her, but to the idealized and stylized picture painted by the poet in those lines of Pale Fire. Actually, it was idealized and stylized only in regard to the older woman; in regard to Queen Disa, as she was that afternoon on that blue terrace, it represented a plain, unretouched likeness.  

Indeed, Kinbote spends an inordinate amount of his lonely, perverted time feeding his colleague details about Zembla, including an incredible secret mile-long passageway from castle to opera house. Yet the coincidences between poem and Prisoner of Zembla asides do not accumulate as much as hint at a very different knot for our flapping parade of loose ends. The biggest such oddity will be a Danish passport holder known to Kinbote as Gradus, but also as Jacques Degré, or Jack de Gray, a "sickly bald-headed man resembling a pallid gland ... singularly featureless ... [with] café-au-lait eyes." It is this toad of a human – neither word does him sufficient injustice – who will slink across Europe, then an ocean, then America, and halt his slimy trail in New Wye. And his final deed would have been captured in the poem's final line were it not for the small matter of John Shade's no longer being able to breathe, much less bleed a pen onto a parchment square.   

Curious readers will find a wealth of secondary literature on Pale Fire, one of the greatest masterpieces of the twentieth century, and I recommend that one read none of it; nothing will be gained by the discerning mind except some clever puns and cleverer misdirections (Kinbote's map is one of snakes, ladders, and more snakes). Anagrams and polyglot calembours are of course grand fun, and an index appended to Kinbote's commentary lubricates all the necessary engine parts for the racier among us to enjoy a few victory laps. But we are much better off gorging ourselves on the infinite delights of Nabokinbote's genius, examples of which I will not adduce if only to avoid the capital crime of preterition. Suffice it to say that our novel can and should be read numerous times, ideally over the course of a long and adventurous intellectual existence, praise that should be heaped on only the most magical of our books. But I will need to say one more thing about Charles Kinbote, or whatever his real name might be ("As the glory of Zembla merges with the glory of your verse," he tells a rather indifferent Shade and a completely unshocked reader, "I intend to divulge to you an ultimate truth, an extraordinary secret"). When Kinbote utters "Even in Arcady am I, says Death in the tombal scripture," we cannot but think of a Russian first name; when we consider our college town, we cannot but think of a smug homophone; and when we wonder about this "ultimate truth," we cannot but think of this tale, named after another lost kingdom. And when Kinbote sees someone lurching up the garden path, we see before us a dagger with a handle toward our hand. 

Friday
Mar222013

Akhmatova, "Эта встреча никем не воспета"

A work ("This tryst of ours no one has sung") by this Russian poet.  You can read the original here.

This tryst of ours no one has sung; 
Of song bereft has grief then waned.  
Cool summer has old warmth disdained,   
As if a new life has begun.  

The sky seems but a stone-set vault, 
By golden flames so wounded red; 
More than I need my daily bread, 
A single word this sky I fault.  

My soul enliven with your words,  
O you beneath the dew-swept sun:  
Not out of passion, not for fun,  
But for great love while on this earth.  

Saturday
Mar162013

Breaking the Waves

If you follow trends or, as I do, watch them dissipate like parti-colored liquids amidst the endless blue of the ocean, you will have noticed the modern motif "anything can happen." A watchword, we note, unimbued with the optimism of an "anything is possible." Rather, we are dealing with a world devoid of moral bearing, of unguided missiles slamming into one another from every angle at any given time. For that reason those of us who believe in salvation cannot bear to watch the gangster showdowns and existential poppycock that have become staples of modern cinema because they all amount to the same thing. If chaos or challenging general principles of societal conduct is your aim, you will fail because you will never find an appropriate alternative; the goal is only to overthrow the existing order for the sake of revolt and not because you have anything with which to replace it. Hence arises youth's riot, antisocial behavior that is a badge of honor for many teenagers with a pathetic pledge to nonconformity (which, of course, is another type of conformity) expressed in its violent speech, clothes, and music. You might achieve some semblance of power or wealth, but in the end you will be assaulted and deposed by a more ruthless and energetic version of yourself, and he soon enough by yet another improved version. This is evolution: death, destruction, survival of the most callous and selfish. Yet somewhere among these innumerable slayings over innumerable centuries we have found love. Not just sex– although sex is in many instances an expression of love – but real, wholesome, unending, blissful adoration. Love of what life offers us, what lies behind the ineluctable modality of the visible, what being moral and caring for others will come to mean over all our years and beyond. This film is about love, and it is one of the greatest ever made.

We find ourselves on the east coast of Scotland in the 1970s, a time when this director was becoming a man and imagining lands where he could be unrestrained in his ambition (all creative teenagers adopt other shores because nothing is more tedious than home; the luckiest eventually come to see that they had been growing up in those imagined lands all along). Like the ravaged villages in the wake of the pagan Viking conquerors, the town has few inhabitants, and over the centuries has turned into a pocket of what we currently term Christian fundamentalism. Now there is nothing wrong with fundamentalist Christianity apart from its name. Has Christianity so drifted from its core values as to become subject to revision by fierce troupes of Bible thumpers? That question, easily answered by someone of no faith, is more troubling to our heroine Bess (Emily Watson). Bess is a believer in the direct meaning of the word. She does not really believe in angels, or ancient events, or the Church as the divining rod of the Almighty; she simply believes that there is some force greater than she could ever imagine that guides and rules and hears everything and everyone. Specifically, it hears her. She talks to it but provides us and the camera with the other side of the conversation, which is unusual but which never devolves into those very modern delusions of communication that quickly get the self-dialoguer subdued or medicated. Bess believes this force exists just as we believe that our hand is attached to our arm, that a door can be opened and closed, and that when we step off our bed and onto the floor, the floor will not collapse or turn out never to have been there in the first place. Faith for her is not an intellectual debate, it is her compass and candle. She does not need ritual, prayer, communion, sacrifice, or the Passion. She needs only to talk and her God will answer her, probably by allowing her to come to the right conclusion on her own.

In a way, what Bess perceives as God are simply her reason and conscience working in tandem with a concept of how the world should be. She wants love and sex and, most of all, she wants to live. Persons of true faith understand that it is better to lead a happy and moral life because when you are old, you can enjoy it again – and, of course, there always remains the possibility of its eternal enjoyment. Bess wants everything a life should consist of: a good spouse, children, a warm, safe and loving home, enough material and nutritional pleasure to be neither in penury or decadence, friendship, laughter, and a chance to work at something she might enjoy. This is all she wants, and she is willing – indeed, this is the law within her – to lead this life with a man of no beliefs, a Scandinavian, and an outsider, the tall and brawny Jan (Stellan Skarsgård). Jan arrives in grand fashion, and late, to their wedding. Once his helicopter touches down, Bess pummels him for his lack of punctuality, but her blows – Bess at this point is still small and delicate – bounce off him and the love he has for her. They wed and she insists that she lose her virginity in the bathroom. Why this insistence?  Strategically, it will set the tone for subsequent impulsive urges, more often than not somewhat unbecoming of a sweet young woman. But the suggestion also fits with what we know of Bess: she wants to live. She has the hardly uncommon desire to make love in a public place and be able to say, only really to herself, that she did it. Not to be seen or heard, but simply to know what it's like, because such an act doesn't really hurt anyone else. Her marriage to Jan does not please the locals, who dislike his religious indifference or ignorance and the fact that he is a Norseman. Jan also has an unappreciated profession: he works on a rigging platform in the North Sea, and is often away for weeks at a time. Bess misses him and makes us miss him, and her pining away for his hasty return leads to exactly that when a freak accident injures Jan and he is brought back to shore unmoving, paralyzed, and bedridden.

Somehow Bess senses that her prayers, or whatever you want to call her talking to herself, were responsible for Jan's having been lamed, and she resolves to do whatever it takes to make him feel like a whole man again. Eventually we hear his request: she should find other men, it doesn't really matter who they are, and with them continue the physical part of her relationship with Jan. But, it is implied, she should not love them. They are only there because Jan's body has been taken from him, but not his soul, his heart, or his mind. Those still belong to her, and so she can only pursue carnal pleasures and then report back to him on how they went. She loves him, she feels guilty for what happened, and, most of all, she believes that everything will work out. Jan will walk again, she thinks and says; of that she is convinced. All she has to do is abide by his will. Yet the acts that she commits with strangers are not for Jan, but for herself. In his odd way, and likely owing to a great deal of sexual experience, Jan understands that the time for such hijinks is when one is young. Never to have had a casual encounter, never once to have sweated and groaned in the arms of someone with whom you shared no past or future – these were the benchmarks of the culture of free love that was peaking in Scandinavia at the time. On a less topical note, these have always been the fantasies of people who are uninclined to marry, and Jan, strange as it may seem, is certainly one of those people. He encourages her because he would want her to do the same if the roles were reversed. This is undoubtedly selfish; but it is how Jan sees the world and there is nothing to be done about it. Besides, it is rather revolting to call a paraplegic selfish even when he inflicts such emotions on others.

Many laborious attempts have been made to analyze the motives behind Jan's request and Bess's compliance, but these are as clear as the sky towards which Bess's eyes seem constantly directed. Jan and Bess simply impose their own values on each other. Jan believes in sexual freedom and, more broadly, in letting people live the way they wish without judging them, which is another way of saying that he detests being judged. On the other hand, Bess believes in one mate and doing whatever necessary to make that relationship work. Some may say that she doesn't know better; but even if she did she might make the same decision. The adventures that Bess undertakes, including a very bad time on an offshore tanker with some rather rough (paying) customers, teach her that love and life are functions of how one acts, how one treats others, and what one comes to think of oneself. Bess is already an outsider because she does not sit in the amen corner and holler along with the congregation. Yet her brand of Christianity is the purest and truest that could be found because she believes, first and foremost, in love. The film shifts gears a few times and is unpleasantly seasoned with some pop hits from the time period, but the acting and script sail and saunter with outstanding vigor. Watson is so fantastic that we forget that she is an actress or that she is, in fact, Emily Watson. She becomes this sad young woman who only wants to live and love and give her heart and mind some sensual and vibrant mementos for later perusal. And there are few films as sensual and vibrant as this masterpiece, few works of cinematography that feel both like a film and like the truth, like cleverly designed artifice and pure inspiration. Here love is celebrated, love in its bizarre and personal forms (which is true love; love is never a harlequin romance because we are not harlequins) and every love story becomes a masterpiece of its own and the greatest achievement we can attain before the darkness swallows our bones. Even when we can hear bells in the distance.

Wednesday
Mar132013

The Devil (Дьявол)

So good, so joyous, so pure was everything at home; and in his soul everything was filthy, foul, and terrible.

During life's course we are told many things about the Devil, most of which have been dismissed by science as the reflection of our unsavory thoughts and desires.  Indeed, it might too much to impute the wickedness of the world to one being – after all, we are also informed by the same unswerving sources that attributing the goodness of the world to one entity is equally nonsensical.  Yet if what motivates our emotions and ideas are chemicals, how are we then to explain the premonitions of good and evil that children have always felt, children, mind you, bereft of the sexual and violent notions that plague adults?  Children have always believed in the fantastic creatures of holiday time because there is immediate gain; but they also sense things that cannot be explained by selfishness and economics.  They will look upon a rosy sunset cascading upon the ocean and understand, if but for a fleeting moment, that such beauty could not be the product of chance; they will be told of the decease of a relative and recognize that their relationship with this person's soul will stretch forever into the future; and they will nod in assent to every exploit of Old Nick because, in a way, the Devil's work is more patently obvious.  When some of these children mature, they will forget the insights that stole upon their consciousness and mock the supernatural; others will continue undeterred in their wonder and intuition; and still others will look upon the world puzzled but convinced of the famous adage about the Devil in this story.  And sometimes perfectly rational adults with countless opportunities at their fingertips will be nonplussed by the lust that overcomes them, as befalls the protagonist of this longish tale.

https://s5.cdn.eg.ru/upimg/oblozhkanew/599.jpg

Our protagonist is Evgenii Irtenev, a beloved son and landowner who has inherited his father's fine beets and atrocious credit.  He is also the keeper of another family trait, that of a roving eye.  While his family digs itself out of debt, Evgenii goes about the business of a young man with a bright future in local government – indeed, the story's opening line claims that "a brilliant career awaited" him – and errs neither toward caution or excess.  In fact, his prepossessions of conduct are classically bourgeois with the slightest hint of a rake, if only by virtue of his geniality:

He was twenty-six years old, of medium height, a strong build and the developed musculature of a gymnast; at the same time, his red-cheeked complexion and sanguine disposition rendered his bright teeth and unthick, soft, curly locks all the more attractive .... As it were, his personality helped him greatly in his business dealings.  A creditor who would have refused someone else believed in him.  The amicable impression with which he afflicted a salesman, village elder, or farmhand who would have pulled dirty tricks on someone else made them all forget all about chicanery as they interacted with such a good, straightforward, and, most importantly, sincere person.

We all know men just like Evgenii.  They are smart, pleasant, and well-meaning, all of which makes them quite physically attractive.  They are also rather conservative in their thoughts and methods because they already have so many advantages.  Under some circumstances, these same young men so set in their ways "imagine a life that once was because they do not have the time to think about how to live," the severe price of too much success, even success in a small village like Evgenii's, at too early an age.  Since professional success often leads to a more interesting private life, Evgenii has little trouble finding female attention, and considers himself "not a debauched lecher, nor, as he liked to say, a monk."  And the inherent difficulty with success in a small village, public or private, is that it all becomes public in the end.  Hence the introduction of the ostensible title character, Stepanida.

Stepanida is described at various junctures, and at no time does she ever resemble the Classical or Romantic concept of beauty.  That is, one suspects, precisely the point.  She is a married charwoman, not educated in her speech or manners, but imbued with something inexorably nubile.  The urges that besiege Evgenii are never satisfactorily elucidated, but one can imagine that in his mid-twenties he has both reached his sexual peak and developed enough intellectually to know something about the offerings of the world.  Their trysts are brokered by a mutual acquaintance, and their secrecy becomes all the more vital once Evgenii's family escapes the legacy of debt.  Pressure comes for Evgenii to marry and Stepanida, who appears more as a prop than a real person, is never an option.  Instead, Evgenii chooses Liza Annenskaya, wife material in every sense of the word but also of a particular hue:

Liza was tall, thin and long.  Everything about her was long: her face, her nose, which didn't so much go forward as drop along her face, her fingers, her steps.  The color of her face was delicately white, almost yellowish, with a faint blush; her hair was long, red, soft, and curly; and her eyes were trusting, beautiful, clear, and small.

Despite Liza's implied resemblance to a collie, she lives and breathes throughout the text.  It is she whose eternally teenage heart "can only be happy when it is in love," it is she who cannot but fall in love with the very eligible Evgenii, and it is she who decides shortly after their marriage that "of all the people in the world, there was no one greater, smarter, purer, or more noble than Evgenii Irtenev."  How ironic that a man who can select such an ideal spouse against the wishes of his immediate family would at the same time nurture in his bosom a craving for a rather unwholesome wench.  A wench who happens to find employment at the very estate on which he and Liza live in clover – which is where our soap opera begins to bubble (if you know something about Slavic folklore, you will be able to guess the source of Tolstoy's inspiration).  Only once in the work's entirety is Stepanida's personal interest in the Irtenevs' marriage expressed, which might be less of an oversight than a glimpse into what drives human beings to make the decisions that feed the annals of tragedy.  Or at least what drives those beings in human form.