When I was a teenager growing up in Uniontown, PA, a half-sinister, half-beautiful wreck of a mining town, the seat of Fayette County, which everyone called Fayette Nam, which ought to give you some idea, I had an English teacher named Ed Cupp. Mr. Cupp was a big slab of a man who kept his desk at the back of the room, something I can recall no other teacher ever doing. I always assumed it had something to do with his nocturnal activities, which we all assumed to be the cause of his frequent headaches and his occasional habit of resting his head on his crossed arms, or of keeping the lights off during class. He once wrote a poem about another teacher at our high school who’d been a great beauty when she still had her maiden name—I’m not quoting, but he put it very much like that. What I remember about the poem is that it rhymed “chimpanzees” with “phalanges.” He taught 11th-grade Honors English, which was where I read Moby Dick for the first time. The class was supposed to be difficult or whatever, but Mr. Cupp didn’t give a shit about grades, and he used to give us these hysterical fill-in-the-blanks tests. After Moby Dick the first question on the quiz was, “Call me ______.” This one kid answered “crazy,” and Mr. Cupp thought it was so funny that he shared it with the whole class the next day. He probably gave the kid an A. He loved books, and he loved literature, and even though he used to make mooing noises at us when we said something wrong or just dull and predictable, I think he loved teaching, but he also recognized the fundamental absurdity of trying to teach an art that manages to be both essential and frivolous to a bunch of egotists—because all teenagers are fundamentally egotists—who had other obsessions and preoccupations.
I’m not a teacher, but I do like to moo. In the second paragraph of his review of The Flamethrowers, by Rachel Kushner, James Wood, who has other obsessions and preoccupations, says:
The novel’s narrator, an artist in her early twenties nicknamed Reno (it’s where she’s from), is obsessed with speed, machines, and land-speed records. (Art seems to be a subsidiary concern.)
Call me crazy. Late in the novel, Reno is at a party for an artist who appeared earlier as a pushy self-promoter trying to wrangle a show out of a prominent gallerist. Reno says:
John Dogg was not a complete idiot. He had merely seemed like one. It was wanting something a great deal that made people embarrassing—which was why I’d hidden my wants around Sandro and his friends, and Giddle, too, pretended I didn’t want an art career when I did. Pretended I wasn’t jealous of Gloria, of Helen Hellenberger, of Talia, when I was.
Kushner is a distressingly great writer. I’m jealous. And this passage makes explicit what she makes clear in every moment of the book; that Reno’s affectless affect is, duh, a put-on; that she isn’t “wide-eyed and even dangerously porous,” a Woody description that’s supposed to be incisive but comes across as snide and a little condescending; she’s afraid. Reno does like speed, and she does like motorcycles, but they’re not her obsession. Her participation in the speed trials out on the Bonneville flats are part of a vaguely conceived art project; after she wrecks, she makes the team that’s taken her in drive her hobbled body back out to the course so she can photograph the tracks she’s made. That isn’t subsidiary. She really wants to be an artist. Even her descriptions of terrible motorcycle and automobile wrecks, in particular the crash of a driver named Flip Farmer (which Wood excerpts in his review), reveal a mind attuned to the visual, the abstract, and the geometric.
Reno considers this quality of her own character as well, later in the book, having been marooned in Italy, where she’s ostensibly gone to film (and be filmed by) the very Italian team that she encountered at Bonneville. It doesn’t work out—heartbreak, revolution, etc., and when she tries to talk to the team over the phone, they seem almost to have forgotten about her. She has a realization: that they are actually interested in speed records, whereas she is interested in the aesthetics of speed records. She isn’t a driver. Well, she is. But it’s a subsidiary concern.
It’s such a fundamental error of reading that I honestly wondered at first if Wood had just stopped reading halfway through. He wouldn’t be the first book reviewer to quit midway, and I think I’d have held it against him less. No. He definitely read the whole thing. He knows the mechanics of the plot right up to the end. Well then, what would explain it? I remembered something Edmond Caldwell wrote about Wood’s equally weird treatment of Bolaño:
We’ve seen how Wood, in his review of Death with Interruptions, turned the long-time communist Saramago into an advocate of Original Sin and ‘fallen’ human nature. It’s in a similar spirit that Wood transforms The Savage Detectives into a story about growing into an adult ‘maturity’ after being disabused of adolescent enthusiasms such as aesthetic and political radicalism. Bolaño in the 1970s was “an avant-garde poet bristling with mad agendas,” and so are the characters who make up the narrative’s “gang of literary guerillas,” says Wood in his summary of the novel. Yet Savage Detectives, he goes on to affirm, “is both melancholy and fortifying; and it is both narrowly about poetry and broadly about the difficulty of sustaining the hopes of youth.” In other words, zany antics involving things like avant-garde agendas and guerilla gangs are fine as long as they are seen (or can be portrayed) as properly childish preoccupations; a book is “good” and merits a positive review to the extent that its pretty sentences are “about” the putting away of childish things.
Coincidentally (or no?), The Flamethrowers has a lot in common with The Savage Detectives, and Wood’s approving note on just how acutely Kushner satirizes the New York art scene in the 1970s likewise has a lot in common with his belief that Bolaño was making fun of the naïve and youthful radicalism of his “visceral realist” poets. Yes, Bolaño is making fun, but, you know, like, we kid because we love. What Wood doesn’t see, because I think he really considers artists and writers fundamentally ridiculous, however much he might try to convince us, and himself, otherwise, is the deep and true and beautiful affection and sympathy that these writers feel for their characters. Just look at what he offers as praise:
She is funny not at the expense of contemporary art but at the expense of the people who make that art, seeing with clear eyes their bluster and pantomime. She scours her chosen period for its extravagance and histrionics; the parallel with today’s ambition market is obvious. Small worlds resemble each other first.
My emphasis. This is supposed to be a compliment! Which seems extraordinary until you consider the source. He mentions, too, that she’s an art critic. Don’t worry, she’s one of us! In fact, what makes The Flamethrowers so good, what makes Kushner so impressive, is that even the most venal, grasping, ambitious, and pretentious of her imagined avant-gardists are rendered with sympathy and love. She is making fun of the scene and of the art—and yes, of the people—but not at the expense of the people. Actually, she likes her artists and revolutionaries very much, which is why we feel their failures so movingly and so viscerally when they inevitably occur.
What do you say about this kind of criticism? That it praises by mistake? That it turns everything it reads into a whetstone on which it sharpens its ideological axe? Wood would probably say he doesn’t like ideology, that it’s as juvenile and fake as art and poetry, but look at how he begins his review:
Put aside, for the moment, the long postwar argument between the rival claims of realistic and anti-realistic fiction—the seasoned triumphs of the traditional American novel on one side, and the necessary innovations of postmodern fiction on the other. It was never very edifying anyway, each camp busily caricaturing the other. And don’t bother with the newest “debate,” about the properly desirable amount of “reality” that American fiction should currently possess. (Twenty grams, twenty-five grams?) Some novelists, neither obviously traditional nor obviously experimental, neither flagrantly autobiographical nor airily fantastical, blast through such phantom barricades. Often, this is because they have a natural, vivacious talent for telling stories; and these stories—the paradox is important—seem fictively real, cunningly alive. Novelistic vivacity, the great unteachable, the unschooled enigma, has a way of making questions of form appear scholastic.
If your response is a moo, or a huh?, then have a seat, and can I offer you a drink? Who had this argument? What is “anti-realistic fiction”? What is the “traditional American novel”, and what are the “necessary innovations of postmodern fiction”? Is the former Moby Dick? Or Hawthorne? Or is he talking about Philip Roth? Is Pynchon postmodern? Personally, I can’t figure out what postmodernism added to fiction that you won’t find in Tristram Shandy. Shit, I guess Sterne and Melville just had natural, vivacious talent for telling stories. And I would like to believe that I’m cunningly alive myself, although, I don’t know . . . wouldn’t that imply that I prenatally pulled one over on my mom?
Again, this paragraph precedes a glowing review that really wants to make the case that Kushner is just some delightful raconteur spouting stories about absurd people, their stupid art and their dumb, failed revolutions. Just a storyteller! Oh, and a vivacious one, which also comes across as snide and condescending, as faint praise. The Flamethrowers is audacious not in its humor, although it’s funny, but in its seriousness. Its revolutions are doomed, but not because the revolutionaries are children or fools. Both her frauds and her real radicals are suffused with a terrible human want, and they crash against the unwillingness of the world to accommodate their desires. I suppose Wood would have them grow up and find desires that are more aligned with the will of the world. But I don’t think it’s an accident that the book ends in a question.
I don’t want to overtax the comparison of The Flamethrowers to The Savage Detectives, which was, as Caldwell put it, “nothing less than the life-cycle of a generation.” The Flamethrowers is in some ways broader than The Savage Detectives (and it actually takes place over at least three generations), but it is decidedly not epic. Of course, it isn’t “a contemporary rewriting of Flaubert’s novel of 1869, Sentimental Education” either, which is what Wood calls it before nailing (I use the term advisedly) the narrator as “like Frédéric Moreau […] a frustratingly malleable figure a hero almost vacuous except for the exactitude of her noticing.” It doesn’t help that Flaubert’s correspondence makes an appearance in the novel, which makes the comparison seem even more overdetermined—or overloaded, to use the Woodier term. If Reno has a fictional counterpart, it’s Christopher Isherwood, the guy who said that he was a camera, whom Wood would probably also call “wide-eyed and dangerously porous.” (By the way, would you call Isherwood traditional? Postmodern? Well, he wasn’t American, so whatever.) They have different locutions, but a similar eye, and they are both foreign interlopers in a world at once alluring and frightening, full of strivers, liars, men on the make, and opportunistic love affairs. Maybe that blurry margin is what makes Wood so uncomfortable that he’s got to start off with a disquisition apropos nothing else at all.
11 thoughts on “Revolting Youth”
Did Hitler believe in flamethrowers?
I never claimed to be a writer, but I find it doubly distressing that you find it distressing that someone else writes so well, perhaps better in your judgment. I’m not talking about your literary criticism, just your everyday observations, which often make me wanna, not merely spit, but go out into the yard, eat some long grass, and yak with a certain lack of control. Some (a lot!) of your writing is that good. It’s not the writing that is indigestible, but the facts, conclusions, allusions, innuendo. Most literary stuff can suck a large duck on the courthouse lawn, but yours is usually innerestin’, as well, but I hope you don’t take that intuition-crushing path not taken as a full-time job.
It’s beyond niggling for me to ask whether you meant “whetting stone,” so I’m going out to the barn to shave my ankles with the weed-whacker instead. They need a trim.
Whetstone, yes. And you should hear me pronounce solder.
“Beyond Niggling” has got to be the greatest potential blog name ever conceived by the mind of man.
there is an appealing ambiguity, now that you’ve mentioned it. Actually starting said blog would require a person of modest imagination like myself to “borrow” a motto from the drunk at the bus stop the other night whose booming interior monologue went something like, “I’ve done the best things, great things, I’ve done the worst things. I’m a pirate!”
Dude’s aware of the authors’ sympathetic view towards their creations. He just uses his professional status to cover for his being a hack, which is, in turn, covers for being an overweening prick.
I definitely thought “huh?” or “moo” or something to the effect of “these are words, but they sound like animal noises”. I have not read The Flamethrowers, but from what you have said, it seems like he’s made a career out of projecting his failings into literary ‘criticism’ (if you could call that abortion of a paragraph literary). I could get the same nonsense by reading undergrad English papers.
please let me know if your book is anything like 2666 so i can do the precise opposite of ever reading it ever.
In this case, you appear to have casted a pearl among swine. Your post here is actually quite TLS-worthy- the equivalent or better of anything I’ve seen there or at the old NYRB. Perhaps you should consider submitting to the established organs once in a while.
Oh – wait a sec – I forgot you’re a top – you want others to submit to your organ.
Never mind …
If you actually READ my review from beginning to end, with an open mind, and not in a state of virulent hostility, you will see that I greatly admired Rachel Kushner’s novel, that there was not a trace of condescension (faint or otherwise) in my praise. Probably 60% of my review was just pure quoting, because the book deserves that — it’s stunningly well-written. And yes, it’s also a very funny book (humour not being your obvious strength?), and part of its humour is that it has fun with some of the projects and tall-tales of some of its characters; many of these are artists. I think I made it clear enough in the review that Kushner is precisely NOT a Tom Wolfe-like satirist, for whom modern art is just fundamentally silly; still, she sees, with a very clear feminist eye, a good deal of the male egocentricity, the bragging, the playacting, and outright sexism that link both the art worlds and the revolutionary political worlds of the mid to late seventies. That’s her sharp Flaubertian/Isherwoodian eye.
It’s a beautiful book, absolutely alive, extremely intelligent, and it was a joy to read it. I expressed that joy in every sentence of my review, and I suspect that it is your own unconscious “condescension” toward the book that you are insanely projecting onto my review. (You seem to find it “distressing” that Kushner writes so well.) As for the idea that I “really consider artists and writers fundamentally ridiculous”, all I can say is that you are again bespeaking some kind of hidden or repressed condescension of your own; to any unbiased reader, that statement is self-evidently disgusting and absurd.
P.S. In Bacharach’s ludicrous fantasy, I somehow condescend to this novel as “just storytelling” — but the phrase (interestingly condescending) is his, not mine. Storytelling, in all its complexity and beauty, is, for me, EVERYTHING. There is no such thing as “just storytelling.” Is there such a thing as “just painting” or just drawing”? What vile rubbish.
I would also point out that though he works very hard to depict me as some kind of Flaubertian conservative, smirking from my lofty height at all the silly artists and radicals described in the novel (oh why won’t they all grow up and get a good job at the New Yorker?), he does this only by slyly failing to mention the last 800 words of my review, in which I fault Kushner (somewhat) for her desire to connect the Fascists of the 1920s with the avant-garde artists of the 1970s and with the leftist political guerillas in Italy. I point out that they are all “flamethrowers” only in a figurative sense, and that to run them all together runs the risk of casting an ironic, conservative Flaubertian eye on a series of very different political stories. It is because the novel is so good at telling very different political stories that I am dubious about the title, which threatens to make a colorful continuum of them. This is what I say at the end of the review:
“Kushner’s title implies the kind of political equivalence that might amount to a Flaubertian ironic nullification, a nihilistic cynicism beyond politics – decades of similar rapacity, play-acting, art-making, and anarchistic “offense,” all of it subsumed within the titular “flamethrowing.” But Kushner is anything but politically cynical, and her novel is an achievement precisely because it resists either paranoid connectedness or knowing universalism.”
Any unbiased reader can see that I precisely RESIST the very reading that Bacharach accuses me of, and precisely praise Kushner for resisting it, too. “Just” a storyteller, eh? I think I know who’s “just” telling stories, here.