April 5, 2005

WHAT STINGO KNEW:

Author Saul Bellow Dies at 89 (MEL GUSSOW and CHARLES McGRATH, 4/05/05, NY Times)

Saul Bellow, the Nobel laureate and self-proclaimed historian of society whose fictional heroes - and whose scathing, unrelenting and darkly comic examination of their struggle for meaning - gave new immediacy to the American novel in the second half of the 20th century, died today at his home in Brookline, Mass. He was 89.

His death was announced by Walter Pozen, Mr. Bellow's lawyer and a longtime friend.

"I cannot exceed what I see," Mr. Bellow once said. "I am bound, in other words, as the historian is bound by the period he writes about, by the situation I live in." But his was a history of a particular and idiosyncratic sort. The center of his fictional universe was Chicago, where he grew up and spent most of his life, and which he made into the first city of American letters. Many of his works are set there, and almost all of them have a Midwestern earthiness and brashness. Like their creator, Mr. Bellow's heroes were all head and all body both. They tended to be dreamers, questers or bookish intellectuals, but they lived in a lovingly depicted world of cranks, con men, fast-talking salesmen and wheeler-dealers.

In works like "The Adventures of Augie March," his breakthrough novel in 1953, "Henderson the Rain King" and "Herzog," Mr. Bellow laid a path for old-fashioned, supersized characters and equally big themes and ideas. As the English novelist Malcolm Bradbury said, "His fame, literary, intellectual, moral, lay with his big books," which were "filled with their big, clever, flowing prose, and their big, more-than-life-size heroes - Augie Marches, Hendersons, Herzogs, Humboldts - who fought the battle for courage, intelligence, selfhood and a sense of human." [...]

Saul Bellow was a kind of intellectual boulevardier, wearing a jaunty hat and a smile as he marched into literary battle. In spite of - or, perhaps, because of - his lofty position, he was criticized more than many of his peers. In reviews, his books were habitually weighed against one another.

Was this one as full-bodied as "Augie March"? Where was the Bellow of old? Norman Mailer said that "Augie March," Mr. Bellow's grand Bildungsroman, was unconvincing and overcooked; Elizabeth Hardwick thought that in "Henderson," he was trying too hard to be an important novelist. He was prickly about his reputation but also philosophical: "Every time you're praised, there's a boot waiting for you. If you've been publishing books for 50 years or so, you're inured to misunderstanding and even abuse."


He was an author whose books no one liked or read but everyone felt they should own and confer awards upon. Go to any book sale and pick up one of his books--the binding will be firm as a rock and not a page dog-eared.


MORE:
-FEATURED AUTHOR: Saul Bellow (NY Times)
-OBIT: Author Depicted Men's Spiritual Crises (Jon Thurber and Mary Rourke, April 6, 2005, LA Times)

[A]s Morris Dickstein, an English professor at City University of New York, said: "Bellow was important for the way he broke with the hard-boiled Hemingway-style tradition in American literature for one that was more interior, reflective and psychological."

Speaking of Bellow's characters, Ozick said Tuesday: They "were true presences, each one utterly idiosyncratic. His physical descriptions were so original. He once described somebody's head 'coated with flour.' It was a metaphor for white hair."

In novels like "The Adventures of Augie March," which many consider his masterpiece, and other works, Bellow explored monumental themes, from identity and fulfillment to morality.

In "Augie March," the title character drifts from job to job, dreaming up ever more grandiose schemes for making it big in the world without compromising his optimistic vision.

In "Herzog," Moses Elkanah Herzog, a cuckolded English professor, frantically tries to shore up his disintegrating life.

Charles Citraine, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author and narrator of "Humboldt's Gift," faces his career in a free fall but finds some measure of peace through meditating on the life and death of his friend Von Humboldt Fleischer.

In "Henderson the Rain King," Eugene Henderson is a millionaire's son, violent in both love and hate who is squandering his life with drink while trying desperately to understand the voice in his head that proclaims, "I want, I want, I want."

"One of the key themes of his fiction," critic Alfred Kazin wrote early in Bellow's career, " … is the attempt of his protagonists to get a grip on existence, to understand not themselves (they know that this is impossible) but the infinitely elusive universe in which, as human creatures, they find themselves."

But for all the difficulties his characters face, much of Bellow's fiction is doggedly optimistic, a reproach to the prophets of the wasteland who proclaim life's absurdity.

In his Nobel acceptance speech, Bellow criticized modern writers for their limited view of mankind, commenting that the essence of our condition was revealed in what Marcel Proust and Joseph Conrad termed "true impressions." Although they may be fleeting, Bellow said, the impressions connect us to the fact that "the good we hang onto so tenaciously — in the face of evil, so obstinately — is not illusion."

In his view, modern writers should aim for a "broader, more flexible, fuller, more coherent, more comprehensive account of what we human beings are and what this life is for."


-OBIT: Author Saul Bellow dies at 89 (HENRY KISOR, April 6, 2005, Chicago Sun-Times)
Mr. Bellow was the undisputed leader of what often has been called the "Jewish literary mafia.'' Others included Bernard Malamud, Philip Roth, Norman Mailer and Joseph Heller. In the 1950s and '60s, they shouldered aside Ernest Hemingway and other white Anglo-Saxon Protestants as leaders of the American literary establishment -- just when American culture was beginning to take over the world.

Like his compatriots, Mr. Bellow could find a common humanity in the deprived Jews of the '40s and the wealthy urbanites of the '90s. Yet he wrote each novel in a different key. The only real similarities among his novels were his broad themes: the individual against indifferent urban society, the individual against oneself, the individual against the insanities of modern life -- all well-worked notions in American literature, but recast with freshness in Mr. Bellow's crucible of genius.


-OBIT: Saul Bellow, novelist who charted ironies of modern soul, dies at 89 (Gail Caldwell, April 6, 2005, Boston Globe)
He may still be most widely known and beloved for the two novels that displayed the full range of that commanding intelligence ''Herzog," in 1964, and ''Humboldt's Gift," in 1975, though he began his ascent in the world of letters with the 1944 publication of his first novel, ''Dangling Man." Mr. Bellow's next book, ''The Victim" (1947), confirmed the emergence of a new protagonist in American literature: modern, Jewish, as alienated from his surroundings as Kafka's Gregor Samsa in ''The Metamorphosis." Along with Bernard Malamud and Norman Mailer, Saul Bellow was soon to form the triumvirate of Jewish-American postwar fiction. Writing in the aftermath of Fitzgerald's and Hemingway's mythic self-inventions, Mr. Bellow and his contemporaries replaced that gentility with a far more equivocal, even precarious world view: If the new Augie Marches were worried to the point of anguish, they were also profoundly, sometimes profanely, alive. And they stood at the entrance to literature's shadowy post-atomic age, in a decade shared by Ralph Ellison's ''Invisible Man" and David Riesman's ''The Lonely Crowd."

-OBIT: Saul Bellow chastised America for its own good: He was a prose master who could bring to life any environment with a realism not limited to the surfaces of life. (Roderick Nordell, 4/07/05, CS Monitor)

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 5, 2005 8:47 PM
Comments

Er, wasn't Stingo a creation of William Styron?

Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at April 5, 2005 8:50 PM

Or are you referring to the fact that Bellow was recommended to Stingo as an up-and-comer in Sophie's Choice?

Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at April 5, 2005 8:52 PM

Stingo realizes that if he wants to make it big in that era he should have been Jewish.

Posted by: oj at April 5, 2005 8:59 PM

Ah....

Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at April 5, 2005 9:04 PM

OJ -

Bellow was perhaps my favorite fictionsmith. While your opinion of Roth is understandable, your disdain for the master strikes me as curious.

(David Cohen - are you of like mind with OJ on this one?)

Posted by: ghostcat at April 5, 2005 9:05 PM

Augie March is a great great novel. The best American novel of the latter half of the twentieth century? Maybe, tho the competition ain't that tough.

I'll that many of the later ones left me cold. I cant identify with the moral failings of big shot academics, even tho I've been on the fringe of that world, UofC no less, for some time.

On the other hand, I thought Ravelstein was a great novel. A great critique of the "homosexual lifestyle" with, in contrast, a lovely portrait of the uplifting value of the love between man and woman, husband and wife. A very conservative novel.

Needless to say it left the critics foundering. None that I've read has even the inkling of a clue about the novel. Most were puzzled that it didn't end at Ravelstein's death -- after all they claimed it is a portrait of Allan Bloom, why continue the story after he's dead? -- and therefore ignored what came after.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at April 5, 2005 9:48 PM

Ghost: I find him, or at least my reaction to him, to be wildly uneven. Some of the books I like and some I can't get through. I very much like Mr. Sammler's Planet and Henderson the Rain King. I think that I never did finish Ravelstein, although I was enjoying it. I think I just left it somewhere and never thought to go back an look for it. I'll have to go dig it up. I was an undergraduate at Chicago in the 80s, but that was more of an annoyance in trying to focus on the book than otherwise.

Posted by: David Cohen at April 5, 2005 10:11 PM

Included among reviewers who failed to understand "Ravelstein" I now see is whoever reviewed it here at BJ.

What the reviewer wanted Bellow to do in the book -- explore why Ravelstein lived as he did despite his conservative impulse -- isn't what Bellow wanted to do.

Which is why the reviewer didn't get why the book continues after R's death.

Ravelstein was a failure as a man.

He was a Platonist who ultimately didn't believe in the eternal Forms/Ideas, or at least if he did believe, he didn't act on this belief. His actions reveal him as a materialist, or rather a sensualist, through and through.

But he was a grreat success as a teacher. Indeed, he taught at least one of his students, the woman who marries the narrator, how to see tear oneself away from flickering images on the cave wall, and how to truly love, rather than how merely to satisfy bodily appetites.

This is why the book continues after R's death, to show this..

The novel is thus a paean to Ravelstein the teacher.

Bellow was not writing a psychological portrait of R/Bloom, but celebrating his friend's brilliance as a teacher.

First rule of reviewing: review the book that was written, not the book that you wanted the author to write.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at April 6, 2005 12:35 AM

Just heard an interview on the BBC which made me despise him. The professor they were talking to said he was the "great defender of the American intellectual against the onslaught of capitalism."

Posted by: oj at April 6, 2005 12:43 AM

Jim:

The book he wrote wasn't as good as the one sitting in front of him. That's a serious failing.

Posted by: oj at April 6, 2005 12:50 AM

OJ -

Bellow, while hardly a fan of socialism, was quite upset about the fate of the human soul in post-modern capitalism. I believe John Paul II offered that same observation more than once.

Posted by: ghostcat at April 6, 2005 1:20 AM

Well, some might say that that's the Pope's job....

But that if a novelist attempts it, the result might prove unreadable. (Unless one prefers to view, say, "The Brothers Karamozov" or "Don Quixote," etc., as self-help books.)

The "job" of the novelist's may well be, among other things, to prompt the reader to start asking (the right?) questions---to hold that mirror up at a provocative angle---to get the reader to see things never seen before (or never seen in quite the same way). And to do it with artistry.

Now, there's no accounting for taste; and one may not like Bellow for any number of reasons: one may find the work repetitive, unfulfilling and ultimately unsatisfaying; one may find (always same, bascially) subject dull, the writing wooden; one may resent the seemingly facile name dropping, the confusing mix of the supposedly serious with the not, or the blending of the rational with the manic; one may find the man's politics and/or morality suspect.

But (and I admit I'm severely biased here) Bellow's artistry cannot be denied.

Posted by: Barry Meislin at April 6, 2005 3:32 AM

They don't escape moral obligation just because they're artists. And that it might be harder to write well with moral seriousness is an especially bad excuse.

Posted by: oj at April 6, 2005 7:45 AM

The book he did write was a very good one, and I'm not sure writing the one you wanted would have made it a better one.

And it was a morally serious novel, and, perhaps unlike many of his others, did propose an answer. Indeed it proposed an alternative to the repellant life of Ravelstein.

I think you need to reread it. I'd think that you of all people could appreciate the attack on Ravelstein's lifestyle and the portrayal of its alternative in the love of the narrator and R's student.

(You can't blame Bellow b/c British litcrit folks are as stupid as their American counterparts)

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at April 6, 2005 9:36 AM

There are too many good books to waste time rereading overrated novelists.

Posted by: oj at April 6, 2005 10:15 AM

I read Herzog and Henderson and liked them. Does that count?

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at April 6, 2005 1:09 PM

OJ Why are you ripping on Bellow. There are not that many conservative novelists.

David: You too? That makes three here you, me and Raoul.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at April 6, 2005 1:14 PM

oj-

I will admit to liking Bellow and his work, in no small part, because his life experiences and consequent weltanschauung were very similar to my own. But beyond that, his artistry was simply magnificent.

And here's the thing: he and you may not have arrived at the same answers, but you both tend to ask the right questions. Bellow knew that finding answers, especially in the age of Google, is the easy part.

A few years back, you did a surprisingly positive interview/review regarding Frederick Glaysher. (I still can't manage links, but ...) You can check out Glaysher's view of Bellow's soul with a simple Google search for "fglaysher bellow".

Posted by: ghostcat at April 6, 2005 2:07 PM

ghost:

Yes, we've known the answers for thousands of years, rendering his fiction largely a waste of time.

Posted by: oj at April 6, 2005 2:24 PM

The moment I convince myself that I "know" the answer is the moment my spirituality begins to atrophy.

Posted by: ghostcat at April 6, 2005 7:31 PM

Why is just his fiction a waste of time? By your standards why not all fiction?

Why don't we all just cozy down with the NT and the Catechism?

Bellow may indeed be overrated, but you missed the point of at least one his novels, so perhaps you're wrong about all those others you've dismissed as well.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at April 6, 2005 7:54 PM

Jim:

Because great fiction is a reflection of them.

Posted by: oj at April 7, 2005 12:52 AM
« UNITED BY HATE: | Main | WHAT A TONGUE-LASHING: »