Search for ‘Dwight Garner’ (11 articles found)

Dwight Garner on Richard Hell

This sounds great

Mr. Hell’s intellectual progress consisted of defining himself as against, rather than for, things. He scorned the Beats and their “insistence on spontaneity.” (“I’ll be spontaneous when I feel like it,” he says.) Hippies were too soft. Rock music peaked in the 1950s, he decides, “before the Beatles homogenized and corrupted everything.”

His band with Mr. Verlaine was a reaction against the downtown music scene. “We wanted to strip everything down further, away from the showbiz theatricality of the glitter bands, and away from bluesiness and boogie,” he declares. “We wanted to be stark and hard and torn up, the way the world was.”

His worldview led to philosophical vexations. “If your message is that you don’t care about things,” he asks, “how can it be delivered?”

The split with Mr. Verlaine was ugly. We read about Mr. Verlaine’s “coldness and egotism” and about what Mr. Hell calls his “globally sour” demeanor. One of the final straws, Mr. Hell reports, was when Mr. Verlaine “told me not to move around onstage while he sang.”

There is a great deal of sex in this book, some of it dire, some of it quite funny. When Mr. Hell had a fling with Patty Oldenburg, who was then separated from the pop artist Claes Oldenburg, their sex was so ferocious, Mr. Hell says, that the painter Larry Rivers, living in the loft upstairs, drilled a hole through the ceiling to watch. His nickname for Mr. Hell was “Tarzan.”

The good writing in “I Dreamed I Was a Very Clean Tramp” (the title comes from a snippet of Mr. Hell’s childhood prose) can jostle against the bad or merely inexplicable. One young woman has large breasts that “looked like twin Eeyores.” About the first Central Park Be-In in 1967, he writes: “ ‘Be-In’ makes me think ‘doughnut,’ internal doughnut. The DNA of humankind as stale crullers.”

The lemony Richard Burton

During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the years he most assiduously kept a diary, the actor Richard Burton (1925-84) had the following pet names for his wife, Elizabeth Taylor: Lumpy, Booby, Old Fatty, Shumdit, Cantank, Old Snapshot and the Baby. She sometimes called him, who knows why, Darling Nose and Drife. They were at the height of their fame, and they seemed to speak a private language. Together they called Campari mixed with vodka and soda water, one of their favorite cocktails, a “Goop.” They referred to the act of raiding the refrigerator instead of sitting down to a proper meal as “grapple-snapping.” That’s a vivid and useful phrase I hope becomes, alongside noshing, common usage.

Burton’s diaries, published now for the first time, are filled with these kinds of pocket-size delights. I grapple-snapped my way through them and even fixed a Goop or two. (They are delicious and derailing.) But I admired this complicated and fairly remarkable book for its deeper and more insinuating qualities as well. First among them is that Richard Burton, a maniacal reader his entire life, was handy with the English language. He was unpretentious and aphoristic. You can open his diaries almost at random and find lines like: “I shall die of drink and makeup”; “It was a piece of glottal cake”; “We are cosmic jokes”; “I was gonged down by a highway patrolman for exceeding the speed limit”; “There are few pleasures to match tipsiness in this murderous world.” Many actors have complained about gawking vacationers and cunning paparazzi. Only Burton put it this way: “If the ‘Origin of Species’ is valid then we are certain to see within the next few hundred years American tourists with built-in cameras.”It’s hard to imagine a midcareer actor working today whose diaries will be half as literate or lemony.

Taylor is in her late 30s in most of these entries; he is in his mid-40s. “E is my only ism,” Burton writes. “Elizabethism.” While she was away, he noted, “I miss her like food.” He calls Taylor “an eternal one-night stand” and “beautiful beyond the dreams of pornography.” He declares, “She is a prospectus that can never be entirely cataloged, an almanac for Poor Richard” …

Burton read everything, high and low, and his running commentary is mostly a joy to behold. Edmund Wilson is “wrong about everything” and “a bore.” A Kingsley Amis novel is “expertly written but has ‘don’ written all over it.” He notes the “excruciating banality” of Ian Fleming and writes about him, hilariously: “He has the cordon-bleu nerve to attack one of my favorite discoveries: American short-order cooking.”

Bruced out

What, and they never covered it?

… This material is well known. The Springsteen obsessive — I rate myself at about an 8.1 out of a possible 10 — will hunt instead for smaller, juicier nuggets. On this front “Bruce” delivers. We learn, for example, that one of Mr. Springsteen’s early bands almost played Woodstock. We witness Janis Joplin drooling over him that same year. Mr. Springsteen nearly named one of his early groups, the author writes, the Intergalactic Pubic Band. He and his musician friends liked to play a cutthroat version of Monopoly for which they would add handmade cards to the Chance and Community Chest piles. If you drew the Race Riot! card, all your houses and hotels burned down. Robert De Niro stole his “You talkin’ to me?” riff in “Taxi Driver” from Mr. Springsteen’s stage patter. The Boss and his longtime manager, Jon Landau, came close to firing the drummer Max Weinberg during the sessions for “The River” (1980); Mr. Weinberg took drum lessons to stay in the band. Mr. Springsteen originally intended to give what became his first Top 10 single, “Hungry Heart,” to the Ramones.

On ‘A Wilderness of Error,’ by Errol Morris

Warner Herzog, the German film director, had promised an unknown filmmaker named Errol Morris that if he completed his first movie, a documentary about humans and their dead pets called “Gates of Heaven,” he would eat his own shoe. Mr. Morris did finish his movie. And Mr. Herzog, like Charlie Chaplin before him, made a meal of his footwear, after cooking it at Chez Panisse with the help of a young Alice Waters.

Errol Morris arrives now with “A Wilderness of Error,” a book about the convicted murderer Jeffrey MacDonald. Bristling with charts, graphs, illustrations, snatches of court transcripts and the author’s own Q. and A.’s with key players, it is the literary equivalent of one of his movies. It’s a rough-hewed documentary master class...

This case became, over time, a kind of rotating media Ferris wheel. Joe McGinniss’s book “Fatal Vision” (1983), written with Mr. MacDonald’s cooperation, turned the tables on its unwitting subject and posited that Mr. MacDonald was a psychopath, strung out on diet pills and plainly guilty. The book was a best seller. It spawned a much watched “60 Minutes” segment and a popular TV mini-series. Janet Malcolm would later publish “The Journalist and the Murderer” (1990), another book about this case, this one examining Mr. McGinniss’s bad faith in leading on Mr. MacDonald about his ostensible innocence. It contained what is probably the most famous first sentence of any nonfiction book in American literary history: “Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible.”

[Morris] finds the premise of her famous first sentence to be ludicrous. His book is a 500-page refutation of its argument. He is here to demonstrate what morally defensible journalism looks like. He lays into “60 Minutes,” as well, for burying crucial evidence. A lot of carnage is strewed.

Wilfred Sheed, 1930–2011

Photograph by Leonard Mccombe

Sheed’s essays — misanthropic yet Nabokovian and light on their feet — embraced what he called “the whole crazy chorus of American letters and subletters.” He wanted to live in a mental world that was filled with “Gershwin playing all night in penthouses, while George Kaufman fired one-liners into the guests and Harpo scrambled eggs in their hats.”

Dwight Garner: food lit

But the greatest food novel ever written, hands down, is ‘‘The Belly of Paris,’‘ by Emile Zola, published in 1873. Anthony Bourdain has called it ‘‘the ‘Citizen Kane’ of foodie books,’‘ and that’s pretty apt. Reading Zola’s novel, set in Les Halles, the great Paris food market, makes you feel as if Mario Batali had taken his sensual Manhattan emporium, Eataly, and tipped it sideways, slowly burying you under its contents. (I mean this in a good way.) The book tells the story of an unjustly imprisoned convict, Florent, who escapes and finds a job as a fish inspector in Les Halles. This novel has a sharp political edge; Florent, a thin and poetical man, is disgusted with bourgeois society (’‘Respectable people . . . What bastards!’‘ is among this book’s famous quotations) and the complacency of a populace grown fat. But the book’s beating heart resides in Zola’s lush, funny and insanely erotic descriptions of the bounty of Les Halles: cheeses, charcuterie, offal, game birds, mountains of things like black radishes and coral-pink carrots. This is the sort of book in which dinner conversation involves topics like the winter salting of meats, and in which even the dawn has a ‘‘balsamic scent.’‘

'A Book of Secrets' by Michael Holroyd

This sounds pretty great

There’s a small, nearly perfect comic moment not far into Michael Holroyd’s new book, “A Book of Secrets: Illegitimate Daughters, Absent Fathers,” when this esteemed biographer, now in his 70s, describes being locked in a car on a research trip with a woman who drives through Italy as if she’s just robbed a bank and is being chased by carabinieri.

Mr. Holroyd is a courteous and slightly frail scholar, a man who has been ill with bowel cancer in recent years. He clutches a door handle, white-knuckled, as this woman roars down the centers of roads and, he worries, gets the car onto two wheels. To keep himself sane, the good-natured Mr. Holroyd begins to emit, like a man in the middle of baffling crazy sex, “extravagant cries of encouragement as we hurtle along.”

Here’s how he describes it: “ ‘Brilliant!’ I cry as she accidentally sounds the horn. ‘We’ve done it!’ I shout again as we overtake a stationary lorry.” Grace under pressure is a beautiful thing; wit under pressure can be better.

This moment is worth mentioning for two reasons. One, it underscores the fact that over the past decade or so Mr. Holroyd’s work has grown more personal, if rarely intimate. His new book is the third in a suite of more or less autobiographical volumes, albeit ones in which he tends to linger at the margins of the page or, like Boo Radley, just behind a door.

Two, Mr. Holroyd appears to be enjoying himself more than he once did. He takes us along on his research adventures — the book is a kind of master class — and “A Book of Secrets” frequently casts a rosy comic glow. He enjoys relating the story of the eccentric Lord Grimthorpe, whose last words were reportedly, “We are low on marmalade.” When he visits Gore Vidal in Italy, he admires Mr. Vidal’s cliffside house but also reports Erica Jong’s observation that it resembles “Hitler’s eagle’s nest at Berchtesgaden.” He gives a lecture in Italy about Lytton Strachey and, for the hell of it, decides to read all of Strachey’s words in falsetto. “Who was there,” he asks, “to stop me?”

Mr. Holroyd is best known for his biographies of Strachey, George Bernard Shaw and the painter Augustus John. He is an institution in Britain, where he was knighted in 2007. He is married to the novelist Margaret Drabble, now Dame Margaret Drabble. In Britain the best writers collect titles the way American ones collect Charlie Rose interviews.

“A Book of Secrets” is the final volume in a series that includes “Basil Street Blues” (2000), a memoir, and “Mosaic” (2004), a blend of biography and autobiography. The author refers to these books as “the confessions of an elusive biographer.”

If one can sometimes compare a biography to a novel, “A Book of Secrets” reads like a series of linked short stories. At its heart it weaves together the lives of several not-especially-well-known women, around whom more famous men (Lord Randolph Churchill, Auguste Rodin, D. H. Lawrence and E. M. Forster among them) sometimes revolved. These women tended to “exist on the fringes of the British aristocracy,” Mr. Holroyd writes, and “were not wholly protected from the hardship and tragedy that, in other classes and a more familiar form, were to fuel the feminist movement.”

Among them is Eve Fairfax, a muse of Rodin, who was abandoned by her fiance and never married. By the end of her long life she was an impoverished, homeless and eccentric supertramp (“a genteel tragedy,” one writer called her), living off the generosity of wealthy friends and carrying around an outsize visitor’s book in which she collected autographs and keepsakes.

Another central character is the poet and novelist Vita Sackville-West, who was married to the diplomat and writer Harold Nicolson. Mr. Holroyd is most interested in Sackville-West’s feverish lesbian relationship with Violet Trefusis, who was also married, and who easily becomes this book’s most fiery and complicating character. Sackville-West referred to her, accurately enough, as an “unexploded bomb.”

Trefusis was so intense that she appeared in many other people’s books, including those by Cyril Connolly, Nancy Mitford and Harold Acton, as well as Sackville-West’s and Nicolson’s. She was an excellent writer herself. A biographer of Nicolson likened her letters to “those flaming yellow bulldozers which one meets tearing up road verges, hedgerows, concrete walls, asphalt roads and any and every obstacle that lies in their path.”

Trefusis was also a novelist, and it is among Mr. Holroyd’s missions in “A Book of Secrets” to revive interest in her novels, which he deeply admires, agreeing with the critic Lorna Sage that they should be discussed alongside those of Edith Wharton, Christina Stead and Jane Bowles. “Violet’s own novels are scattered over Europe like a leaderless and dispersed army,” he writes. “They are written in French or English as if she is vainly trying one key, then another, to set herself free.”

Place is a resonant character in “A Book of Secrets.” Much of the action revolves around the palatial Villa Cimbrone, located on a hill above the Italian village of Ravello, where many of these women visited. Mr. Holroyd refers to it, a bit melodramatically, as “a place of fantasy that seems to float in the sky,” a spot that “answers the need for make-believe in all our lives.”

Mr. Holroyd is an impeccable writer and researcher, a man whose books are packed with intricate detail yet retain a buoyancy. They are aerodynamic; they run as silently as gliders. Yet I have sometimes pushed back against them. They are bespoke but can be bloodless, like lesser Merchant-Ivory films. Their good taste can drive you a bit mad.

“A Book of Secrets” didn’t just overcome my reservations; it buried them under a landslide of deftly deployed fact and feeling. This book is a richly marbled meditation not only on the lives of several remarkable women but also on the art of biography itself.

George Painter, a biographer of Proust, once compared the experience of reading Violet Trefusis’s prose to “being driven at 90 m.p.h. over an ice field, by a driver who knows how to skid for fun.” Mr. Holroyd isn’t that kind of writer. He’s cautious, buttoned down, collar turned up against the wind. But his new book contains many fine moments during which, holding on with white knuckles, you might hear yourself cry, “Brilliant!”

Marching powder

In “An Anatomy of Addiction” Dr. Markel braids [Sigmund Freud and William Stewart Halsted]‘s stories intricately, intelligently and often elegantly. His book, worthy on many levels, suffers from a pervasive mildness, a certain PBS-ness of the soul. There are few memorable sentences or ecstatic insights. Cliches (“green around the gills,” “avoid like the plague”) dot the surface. This book seems to have been composed not on Bolivian marching powder but on chamomile tea.

Dr. Markel does write well about, among other things, the appeal of cocaine to overworked doctors. A famous medical professor of the era admonished his students, “Whoever needs more than five hours of sleep should not study medicine.”

What was not to like about cocaine? About the drug’s effects, the author writes: “This is not the slaphappy, ‘I love everyone’ kind of joy that transpires after a few belts of whisky. When under the influence of cocaine, one feels supremely confident, almost electrically charged with faster thoughts, better ideas (at least in one’s own mind at the time of the high), an increased speed of speaking and a greater appreciation of such sensations as sight, sound and touch.”

Freud liked the stuff so much that between roughly 1884 and 1896, when he was in his 20s and 30s and in his major cocaine period, he tended on many days to have a red, wet nose. He gave cocaine to family and friends. He employed it to “make bad days good and good days better,” the author writes, and to ease “the pain of being Sigmund.”

His letters to his fiancee were sometimes ripe with sexual feeling, of the kind a line of powder can incite. “I will kiss you quite red and feed you till you are plump,” Freud wrote. “And if you are forward you shall see who is the stronger, a gentle little girl who doesn’t eat enough or a big wild man who has cocaine in his body.”

Alfred Kazin's Journals

…Yet one of the many revelations in Kazin’s journals, published now for the first time, is the sense they impart of how ill at ease — how tender, how easily wounded, how roiled — he was behind his bluff cosmopolitan mien. “I could weep when I realize how much time I waste,” he confided in a 1948 entry, because of “my anxiety, my useless shadow-boxing with the imaginary censure and rejection by others.”

Anxiety could curdle into rage. “I am poisoned,” he writes, by “hatred of others […] who are ‘better,’ more efficient, who do not flatter and love me unceasingly.” He says, “I am a critic-teacher-authority to so many, but to myself, a raging id, a volcano of passions.”

Those passions — for sex, for novels, for ideas, for talk, for city life — spill from “Alfred Kazin’s Journals,” edited by his biographer, Richard M. Cook. This is a remarkable book, easily one of the great diaries and moral documents of the past American century. What it lacks in cohesiveness it makes up in its frankness, its quick-pivoting angularities. Kazin dismisses his journal at one point as a “disorderly pile of shavings.” That disorder only adds to its amplitude.

Journal keeping, for Kazin, was a ritual. He wrote regularly in his for more than half a century, and it ultimately ran to more than 7,000 pages. “Alfred Kazin’s Journals” represents about one-sixth of that total. Kazin has mined some of this material before, heavily editing and rewriting a bit of it for his book “A Lifetime Burning in Every Moment: From the Journals of Alfred Kazin” (1996). But this is the first time this writing has been seen in its original form. Kazin was deeply chagrined, Mr. Cook writes, that he was unable to see them published during his lifetime.

The entries in “Alfred Kazin’s Journals” — the first from 1933, the last from 1998, only a few months before his death — cover an enormous amount of ground: his development as a reader and critic; his lifelong consideration of his lodestar American writers (Emerson, Thoreau, Melville and Whitman); his four marriages; his shifting sense of his own Jewishness; and his reactions to world events, from Pearl Harbor through his loathing of Ronald Reagan.

Kazin’s libido pokes out of this material like a submarine telescope and is the source of much of this book’s humor and slanting sunshine. Kazin loved the “fantastic sensuality of New York” and could hardly walk a block without registering the aesthetic dimensions of his own cravings. He loved “the blousy half-nakedness of the girls in the streets,” the “faint drops of sweat on their lips,” the “breasts and hot purple mouths of the Bergdorf Goodman women.”

His need for sex haunted him; it swamped him. He had many affairs during his marriages, and he berated himself for his promiscuity. There’s earthy comedy, though, in the way even married women threw themselves at him. “This unbelievable availability of women,” he wrote in 1968. “I have the spark for many of them — Miss Baker runs in and out of my office crying ‘I love you!’ “

Kazin’s journals, packed with couplings, are also packed with deft and often acid portraits of his contemporaries. He detects a “fatal particle of vulgarity” in Irving Howe; he dislikes the “specious ‘reasonableness’ “ of Lionel Trilling’s prose. Norman Podhoretz has a “brutal, little mind.” About Harold Brodkey he says, “You wanted to kill him for letting his misery wash all over you.” He’s suspicious of the chic young Susan Sontag; in 1978 he refers to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the future Supreme Court justice, as “duck face.” John Cheever is “the performer,” J. D. Salinger “the cute child,” John Updike “the professional.”

There’s this excellent line about his sometime friend Saul Bellow: “Saul: who like a precious jewel may let himself be handled, but who is impermeable.” There’s a wonderful riff on Elizabeth Bishop’s hair. It “rises electrically up her head” and “seems to shoot up straight, connected node to node by sparks.” He writes, “That upsweeping electric hair is the poet’s helmet, his rooster comb.” He has a funny way of turning names into mock-titles: “Murray the Kempton,” “Gordon the Lish.”

Dwight Garner on Les Murray

The Australian poet Les Murray … is a very wide, very bald man who resembles a less doleful version of Colonel Kurtz in the film “Apocalypse Now.” It is possible to imagine him having a small meal of minor critics for breakfast, as if they were kippers, and then polishing off a pile of verse novelists with his 11 a.m. tea.

As it happens, Mr. Murray also resembles James Beard, the gastronome, and has written a poem comparing the moon to a baked pig’s liver. As a boy, Mr. Murray was taunted about his weight; the subject was grim for him. So it’s a pleasure to discover, in his new collection, “Taller When Prone,” a poem called “Fame” that appears to nod with good humor in the direction of his resemblance to Beard. It begins:

We were at dinner in Soho
and the couple at the next table
rose to go. The woman paused to say
to me: I just wanted you to know
I have got all your cook books
and I swear by them!

The poem concludes:

I managed
to answer her: Ma’am
they’ve done you nothing but good!
which was perhaps immodest
of whoever I am.