• Herta Müller, J.M.G. Le Clézio, and Me – or: The Melancholy Resistance of Autographs to Life

    I.

    I’ve never chased autographs. Not on principle; simply, I’ve never put myself in the path of anyone whose signature might carry for me a valence. To do so requires a quality of ego which, for all my petty narcissisms, I evidently lack. I love the story of the man who followed William Golding into a men’s room in Stockholm to requested his autograph. To have the…frame of mind to make such an approach – what I wouldn’t give.

    A few authors’s penmanship samples have dropped into my collection. As an eight-year-old I stood in line, all day it seemed, at the May D&F store in downtown Denver to have Theodor Seuss Geisel, aka Dr. Seuss, sign my copy of The Lorax. I have no idea where this book is now. Two more autographs came my way just out of college, while working in a bookstore at Stapleton International Airport: I recognized Erica Jong the moment she walked in off the concourse. We had just sold out of The Devil At Large, her then recently published biography of Henry Miller, but we did have one copy of Every Woman’s Blues, which I made haste to put by the cash register before she approached. “Oh,” she said, “You have my book.” Whereupon she signed it – “Best wishes to David and Sam, Erica Jong”, across the title page such that the eye need never alight on the actual title – and, with my employee’s discount, I bought it. Annie Proulx was far less prolix when she signed The Shipping News – “E. A. Proulx”, like the title’s bastard sibling wavering fiercely in the surrounding glare of page.

    Until last year, this comprised my entire collection of autographed books. Then my friend, Viet Dinh, who teaches writing at the University of Delaware, came into town with a copy, signed especially for me, of Twilight of the Superheroes, by the American master of the short story, Deborah Eisenberg.

    Except for the Dr. Seuss, which required mastering my child’s legs and bladder, I did nothing for any of these.

     

    II.

    Death is an ass, even when it doesn’t quite strike. For nearly a month it was forever darting out of sight whenever one of us entered Sam ‘s hospital room. It wasn’t fooling anyone, we all knew it was there. For form’s sake, as with someone else’s rotten child, we played along, talked to Sam, held his hand through his deliriums, fed him ice chips, celebrated the ice chips, watched a slightly soured strength creep back into his etched limbs. Did you see a little snot-nose slip in? Who, me? No. Did you?

    Death is a despot, exacting from you all your thoughts, more than you have to survive on yourself.

     

    III.

    Viet is a gifted writer. Find a copy of the 2009 PEN/O’Henry Award Stories and read “Substitutes”, in which his narrator recalls childhood in Vietnam, and the string of substitute teachers hired to teach his class, each of whom mysteriously failed one day to show up. It is the kind of story that sneaks up on you, then stays. Keep your eye out for his first novel, about the experiences and relations among disaster relief workers. He’s not shared with me the title, but last we spoke, he was on the prowl for a publisher.

    Viet chases autographs. Sometimes literally. At a writers conference in Washington D.C., he pursued Orhan Pamuk the length of the Washington Mall to procure the great man’s scrawl. I could hardly speak to him after he told me this, so envious was I. The author of (and, wonderfully, the builder of) The Museum of Innocence is one of my foremost author crushes. Viet was the first to tell me about László Krasznahorkai, the great Hungarian novelist, whose Nobel Prize is, at the moment, rising in The Swedish Academy’s warming oven, and whose The Melancholy of Resistance is currently giving me giddy fits of amazement. Viet met him, which will mean he has at least one example of his handwriting on something.

    This summer, he presented me with, not one, but two remarkable gifts which left me rather at a loss for words. Regular readers of my posts will no doubt find this hard to believe. Nonetheless, when he handed me a signed copy of Herta Müller’s Nadirs I was helpless to arrive at a proper response. Into my hands he had placed an object which had been held in the hands of a Nobel Prize winner. What, really, does one say?

    “I haven’t read her yet,” I ventured. “Do you like her?” Such a weak question. “Oh yes,” he said. “She’s excellent. I just read her new book, The Hunger Angel. Wonderful.”

    I turned this somehow mysterious object over and over in my hands, as if the existence of the black fountain pen ink on the title page made it less understandable as an actual book, trying to take in alternately the austere blue university-press-style cover and the author’s photograph on the back, which shows an apparently humorless woman whose youthful appearance is belied by a few lines discernible around her large, steady eyes, hair close-cropped in a manor associated with American lesbians of a past decade, the shoulders and high collar of a dark and probably stylish coat, small dangling earrings apparently oblivious of their role as ornament, heightening rather than allaying the desolation of the cheekbones. So unlike a Nobel laureate. Which begs the question, just what is a Nobel laureate like? I tried to picture her holding the pen with which she’d signed this book. My book. “She looks different now,” Viet said. “She’s older. Her hair is straight, framing her face. She’s very severe, which makes me love her all the more.” His eyes danced; I could see him seeing her. And I knew that, in at least one sense of the word, he meant what he said – about loving her.

    And what I really found myself wanting, or believed I wanted in that moment, and had not the moment before, and which I could not have said, which is why I could, finally, say so little, was Herta Müller herself.

     

    IV.

    There is a compelling illusion that attends an autograph, the illusion that you are actually, magically, connected to the person whose signature you’ve come to possess. And being so connected means somehow touching that person’s importance. And the thing about importance is the sense of permanence it holds, it’s promise of immortality. An autograph is a fetish to wield, like all fetishes, against death.

     

    V.

    Viet likes a tea shop on 15th and Platte called “House of Commons”, and it was there, over cucumber sandwiches and Darjeeling, that he presented me with his second gift, The Round & Other Cold Hard Facts, by J. M. G. Le Clézio. The Müller had primed me and, like a gouche hausfrau checking the hallmark on a plate, I surreptitiously glanced at the the title page. Shouldn’t it have been enough that he he had brought me the book? The giving and receiving of books is one of the primary forms of social commerce among my friends, and here was an especially thoughtful offering, knowing as he does that I keep this blog. But something in my psychical basement had been stirred from recumbence, a need, bleached and crying, which believed its relief could be achieved by a nod from a notion of greatness. An autograph is not a Chartres, but in the moment, if prepared for, it can feel, if not like something transcendent itself, then a gratifying brush with something that is. An autograph invites you to forget that it’s medium is friable. Ink and paper, when it comes down to it, won’t outlast much. How else could the Dead Sea scrolls so astonish? It is quite possible, however, that it will outlast you.

    My friend Nathan, who knows about books as objects, guessed that a Nobel laureate’s autograph in a fourteen dollar paperback could jump the price to sixty or seventy dollars. “Enough of these, and I could move to Mallorca?”

    I looked across the table at Viet, trying to ascertain whether he had caught me peeking. While he spread lemon curd on his scone, I opened the book outright. There it was. This time in blue ballpoint and friendlier for it: “pour David/ —Le Clézio/ 2012” Look. He even knew my name.

     

    VI.

    When Herta Müller won the Nobel Prize in 2009, Sam’s response was at first dismissive. “Another dour Eastern European.” But his opinion changed, and decisively, when he read The Appointment. He proceeded to buy all of her books then in translation (save Nadirs). It was different with Le Clézio. His mild curiosity dissipated upon reading the short story the New Yorker ran in conjunction with the Nobel announcement. He found it thoroughly dreary and has not been able to muster any interest in him since.

    A few recent Nobel laureates are close to his heart. Wislawa Szymborska is a nearly religious figure for him. Imre Kertesz’s Kaddish for an Unborn Child moved him as deeply as any modern novel has. Towards the end of summer, as his health was closing in, he instinctively reached for Saramago, the great opener; he got only a little past the strange, luminous passage of the annunciation in The Gospel According To Jesus Christ before the crisis took root, and his life as usual. The book followed him to his various rooms on ever-ascending floors of St. Joseph’s, waited for him on the table behind the metal tree hung with tubes for steroids, saline, and nutrients, waited as his mind, body, and spirit guttered.

    He’s reading again, for short spans. He listens to music in earnest. His own especially, and Debussy’s. Soon, perhaps, he’ll have the reserves to see where the annunciation leads.

     

    VII.

    Sam won’t be home for Thanksgiving this year. I think when he does return I’ll ask him to write his name. Perhaps on the back of an envelope. I’ve always loved his handwriting, impossible to read but beautiful, like a hybrid of Korean and Arabic. I’ll ask him to write his name, maybe three times, on whatever comes to hand, an old receipt, the back cover of the Saramago, a paper sack we use for recycling. I’ll ask him to write his name no more than ten times, on the walls maybe, and the dashboard of the car. Just ten times a day. The side of the house could use the lift, and the trees on the block. It won’t be much to ask, really, every day, for the next year or two. Or however long it takes.


  • Mo Yan: China’s Chronicaler and Critic wins the 2012 Nobel Prize

     

    “If I were to choose a Nobel Laureate, it would be Mo Yan.”

    – Kenzaburo Oe, winner of the 1994 Nobel Prize

     

    Mo Yan, winner of the 2012 Nobel Prize for Literature

    As I stood in the morning sun on that first day of the year, I kept digging in my hooves to keep from falling over. Then I took my first step as a donkey, thus beginning an unfamiliar, taxing, humiliating journey. Another step; I wobbled, and the skin on my belly tightened. I saw a great big sun, a beautiful blue sky in which white doves flew. I watched Lan Lian help Yingchun back into the house, and I saw two children, a boy and a girl, both in new jackets, with cloth tiger-head shoes on their feet and rabbit-fur caps on their heads, come running in though the gate. Stepping over the door lintel was not easy for such short legs. They looked to be three or four years old. They called Lan Lian Daddy and Yingchun Mommy. Hee-haw, hee-haw— I did not have to be told that they were my children, the boy named Jinlong and the girl called Baofeng. My children, you cannot know how your daddy misses you! Your daddy had high hopes for you, expecting you to honor your ancestors as a dragon and a phoenix, but now you have become someone else’s children, and your daddy has been changed into a donkey. My heart was breaking, my head was spinning, it was all a blur, I couldn’t keep my legs straight…I fell over. I don’t want to be a donkey, I want my original body back, I want to be Ximen Nao again, and get even with you people! At the very moment I fell, the female donkey that had given birth to me crashed to the ground like a toppled wall.

    She was dead, her legs stiff as clubs, her unseeing eyes still open, as if she had died tormented by all sorts of injustices. Maybe so, but it didn’t bother me, since I was only using her body to make my entrance. It was all a plot by Lord Yama, either that or an unfortunate error. I hadn’t drunk an ounce of her milk; the very sight of those teats poking out between her legs made me sick.

    – from Life and Death Are Wearing Me Out


  • 2012 Nobel Prize for Literature – My Personal Shortlist

    Strange. I can’t shake the feeling that when the Nobel literature committee sends white smoke up its chimney on Thursday, it will smell like pepernoten and Cees Nooteboom will have a very busy day. While not my first choice, this Dutch author, widely known in Europe for his poetry and travel writing, and in the United States for the few of his short, brilliant, philosophically disarming novels available in English, would cut a distinguished, charming, and very apt figure on Stockholm’s stage, come December. His win would also net The Netherlands its first Nobel laurels for literature.

    Unless, that is, the committee decides its time to bring another non-European into the fold. China’s Mo Yan, perhaps. What a delight it would be if they pulled a fast one and gave it to Ludmilla Petrushevskaya, Russia’s wicked wise novelist, short story writer, playwright, and cabaret artist. Amos Oz will almost certainly have to wait for some other October to arrive with his moment, unless Stockholm wishes to make overt its often implicit, always coyly denied political motivations. And is it just me, or does the neglect of Chinua Achebe seem unwarranted? I read in David Marr’s biography of Patrick White that the ground-breaking Nigerian writer was on the shortlist as far back as 1973. What happened there? Ladbrokes, Britain’s famous betting company, has Haruki Murakami as the favorite. I don’t see it myself. Perhaps another year. And that Bob Dylan buisness? Cute, but really, that’s enough of that.

    So, here is my personal short list: Normally I could yap away all day long about these writers. But My partner, Sam – who seduced me, in part, with books – is gravely ill and in the hospital. Which means I have had neither the time nor the reserves to write cogently the rationale behind my choices. So these five magnificent writers will have to speak for themselves – better, by far, it turns out, than I ever could.

    5.  Cees Nooteboom (Holland)

    Once, and then for good, the spell had been broken. As the chalice was being lifted to where, high above the church, the sun would soon trace its course, the old man suddenly began to tremble. Inni would never forget the scream that followed, never. The raised hands let go of the chalice. The wine, the blood, poured all over his chasuble, and the cloth was torn from the alter in one haul by the monk’s clawing hands, dragging candles, host, and paten with it. A scream as of a huge wounded animal bounced back from the stone walls. The man tugged at his chasuble as though he was trying to tear it asunder, and then, still screaming, he slowly began to fall. His head hit the chalice and started to bleed. When he was already dead, he still went on bleeding, red and red mingled on the islands of shiny silk amid the gold brocade, and it was no longer clear which was which — the wine had become blood, the blood wine.

    – from Rituals

    4.  Ismail Kadare (Albania)

    It must have been snowing…there…. Then he stopped writing, snatching away the pen as if afraid it might be held to the paper by magic. It was with an effort that he went on to record, in the succinct style used in the rest of the rest of the Chronicle, the death of Kurt and his own appointment as head of the Palace of Dreams. Then his pen was still again, and he thought of the distant ancestor called Gjon who on a winter’s day several centuries before had built a bridge and at the same time edified his name. The patronymic bore within it, like a secret message, the destiny of the Quprilis for generation after generation. And so that the bridge might endure, a man was sacrificed in its building, walled up in its foundations. And although so much time had gone by since, the traces of his blood had come down to the present generation. So that the Quprilis might endure…

    Perhaps that was why — like the ancient Greeks, cutting off their hair at a funeral so that the angry soul of the departed wouldn’t be able to recognize them and do them harm — perhaps that was why the Quprilis had changed their name to Köprülü: to avoid being identified with the bridge.

    Mark-Alem knew all this, but remembered how on the fateful night he had longed to throw off the protective mask, the Islamic half-shield of “Alem,” and adopt one of those ancient names that attract danger and were marked by fate.

    – from The Palace of Dreams

     

    3.  Milan Kundera (France/Czech Republic)

    What remains of the dying population of Cambodia?

    One large photograph of an American actress holding an Asian child in her arms.

    What remains of Tomas?

    An inscription reading HE WANTED THE KINGDOM OF GOD ON EARTH.

    What remains of Beethoven?

    A frown, and improbable mane, and a somber voice intoning “Es muss sein!”

    What remains of Franz?

    An inscription reading A RETURN AFTER LONG WANDERINGS.

    And so on and so forth. Before we are forgotten, we will be turned into kitsch. Kitsch is the stopover between being and oblivion.

    – from The Unbearable Lightness of Being

     

    2.  Alice Munro (Canada)

    Savanna has fallen asleep, her lips slack around the nipple. With the boys out of the way, it’s easier to detach her. Sally can burp her, settle her on her blanket, without worrying about an exposed breast. If Alex finds the sight distasteful — she knows he does, he dislikes the whole conjunction of sex and nourishment, his wife’s breast turned into udders — he can look away, and he does.

    As she buttons herself up there comes a cry, not sharp but lost, diminishing, and Alex is on his feet before she is, running along the path. Then a louder cry getting closer. It’s Peter.

    “Kent falled in. Kent falled in.”

    His father yells, “I’m coming.”

    Sally will always believe that she knew at once, even before she heard Peter’s voice she knew what had happened. If any accident happened it would not be to her six-year-old who was brave but not inventive, not a show-off. It would be to Kent. She could see exactly how. Peeing into the hole, balancing on the rim, teasing Peter, teasing himself.

    – from Deep-Holes, collected in Too Much Happiness

     

    1.  Philip Roth (United States)

    What happens when people die, my mother explained, is that they go up to the sky and live on forever as gleaming stars….

    That explanation made sense then and, of all things, it made sense again on the night when, wide awake from the stimulus of all that narrative engorgement, I lay out of doors till dawn, thinking that Ira was dead, that Eve was dead, that with the exception perhaps of Sylphid off in her villa on the French Riviera, a rich old woman of seventy-two, all the people with a role in Murray’s account of the Iron Man’s unmaking were now no longer impaled on their moment but dead and free of the traps set for them by their era. Neither the ideas of their era nor the expectations of our species were determining destiny: hydrogen alone was determining destiny. There are no longer mistakes for Eve or Ira to make. There is no betrayal. There is no idealism. There are no falsehoods. There is no class struggle. There is no discrimination or lynching or Jim Crow, nor has there ever been. There is no injustice, nor is there justice. There are no utopias. There are no shovels. Contrary to the folklore, except for the constellation Lyra —which happened to perch high in the eastern sky a little west of the Milky Way and southeast of the two Dippers — there are no harps. There is just the furnace of Ira and the furnace of Eve burning at twenty million degrees.

    from I Married a Communist

    Well then, until tomorrow…


  • The 2012 Nobel Prize for Literature: Dreaming Up a Winner

    I had the strangest dream last night: The Nobel Prize for Literature was announced, and the winner for 2012 was…Romy Schneider. Lets hear it for 1960’s Euro-glam! You might easily wonder how much time I have spent obsessing about Frau Schneider that her name would elbow through to the fore of my dreadfully overstuffed unconscious. Absolutely none. I assure you. In fact, I had to Wiki her just to remind myself what films I’ve seen her in. While in her too-short life the Austrian-born bombshell made trouble for stiff, bland Tom Tyron in Otto Preminger’s  The Cardinal, played Empress Elizabeth of Austria in Lucchino Visconti’s lugubrious Ludwig, and carried on a very public affair with Alain Delon, produce a great work of literature she did not. I could be persuaded that she had an active postcard life, but, beyond that, it is hard to even imagine her in the act of writing. But, in my dream, she had written at least one great novel, praised for its “pervasive melancholy and diaphanous language”. From what neural trash-bin of cliches did I pull this? My first thought upon waking: It should have gone to Fanny Ardant. With her Truffaut background and ability to take Cathrine Deneuve to the floor, she’d have no time for such gauzy tosh. My second thought was a rueful wish that Schneider had actually produced this reputed lachrymose masterpiece. I’d be curious to read it. Though it would, perhaps, be a toss up between that and Simone Signoret’s memoir, Nostalgia Isn’t What It Used To Be.

    Romy Schneider – Surprise winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature

    Thankfully, the choice for the Nobel is not up to my brain stem. It is, rather, up to the brain stems of the five men and women appointed by the Swedish Academy whose job it is each year to dream up a winner. If this sounds irreverent to that illustrious coterie of intellectual curators, consider neuroscience. Because of the work of scientists, who themselves have won Nobels, we know that to make so-called “rational” decisions, our brains must enlist  their more antiquated components, those areas in charge of our emotions, desires and anxieties, our knee-jerk reactions, all that was once subsumed by the Freudian id. The separation of reason from un-reason, they tell us, is pure illusion. In a normally functioning brain, the cortex weighs options, puts forth its arguments, assembles its narratives, but at the moment of choice, something primal, emotional, reptilian, must be satisfied. What we decide to do with our money, who we decide to sit next to on the bus, or vote for, or flirt with, or flee, who, what, how, and where we decide to worship, or read, unless we draw on the lizardish parts of our brains –  those parts connected to our dreams – we are left in a purgatory of indecision.

    When the announcement comes, the head secretary will  issue a pithy statement, summarizing the committee’s rationale. The new laureate may “Give voice to an experience as yet un-heard on the World stage”, or use language to “limn the boundaries of the sayable.” But, in his effort to make their choice make sense to us, he won’t tell us the half of what went into it. To wit, what lights their little Nordic fires.

    Whatever conversations I might have with my analyst about my “Romy Schneider wins the Nobel Prize” dream, the best part of it is the sublime joke of it, that is, its unpremeditated murder of expectation. Whether we grouse or whoop, we all secretly love it when this happens. Our brain stems light up, we become alert, our bodies vibrate. My waking brain will forever keep Romy Schneider from her Nobel Prize. But there is something in the names of each of the men and women I do place on my personal list of contenders that lights the same spark of delight I had upon waking this morning, and realizing that something rather fabulous had happened.

    So, in the next few weeks, think kind thoughts for the Swedish five, as they lay their heads down each night on their impeccably laundered pillows, that their brain stems send them wild dreams, and that when they wake to hold their conclave, they remember the delight.

     

    My Personal Long List:

    In the mean time, here is my long list for this year. Sometime before the big announcement, I’ll share my short list. Read through it. If there is someone I’ve named at whom your own limbic system shudders, by all means say so. Likewise if you are in agreement about any of these writers, let me know. But, best of all, if there is someone absent from this list who you feel must be included, don’t remain selfishly silent. Tell us who you would dream up as a winner.

     

    1.   Chinua Achebe (Nigeria)

    2.   Antonio Lobo Antunes (Portugal)

    3.   Margaret Atwood (Canada)

    4.   Bei Dao (China)

    5.   Juan Goytisolo (Spain)

    6.   Ismail Kadare  (Albania)

    7.   György Konrad (Hungary)

    8.   László Krasznahorkai (Hungary)

    9.   Milan Kundera (Czech Republic/ France)

    10.  Cormac McCarthy (United States)

    11.  Alice Munro (Canada)

    12.  Les Murray (Australia)

    13.  Cees Nooteboom (Netherlands)

    14.  Amos Oz (Israel)

    15.  Ludmilla Petrushevskaya (Russia)

    16.  Philip Roth (United States)

    17.  Salman Rushdie (Great Britain)

    18.  Tom Stoppard (Great Britian)

    19.  William Trevor (Ireland)

    20.  Michel Tournier (France)


  • THE TREE OF MAN: Patrick White Comes to Grips with a God of Spit and Mud

    I.  THE BOOK: GOD APPEARS IN A GOB OF SPITTLE

    It is hardly a spoiler to say that on page 508 of Patrick White’s novel The Tree of Man Stan Parker dies. One gathers from the opening pages, in which we find the young Stan Parker establishing himself as a pin-point of humanity in the vast Australian bush, that this is going to be “that kind of a book”. One could even suspect it from the title itself, proclaiming, as it does, the novel’s encompassing intentions with perilously grand echoes: The Descent of Man, The Tree of Life, The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Man’s Fate, Man’s Hope, The World Tree, The Rise of Man, The Fall, etc.. No question that we are going to be reading through the full gamut, life, death, and all the rest. By the time we turn the last pages, having lived with  Stan Parker, his wife, Amy, and their children, Ray and Thelma, through fire, flood, griefs, infidelity, failures and quiet triumphs, and, yes, Stan’s death, that potentially burdensome title, we find, has long since shed all grandiosity, and become merely apt.

    Stan Parker has been called Patrick White’s “first good man”. David Marr, White’s biographer, records his struggles to create him: “The greatest technical difficulty White faced, one which drove him to rages and left him sitting, at times ‘three days over just one sentence’ was the challenge of making goodness live and breathe on the page. ‘I’m not a good person,’ White often confessed to his friends. ‘But I know goodness.'” Stan Parker is stubborn and a bit of a fatalist, like White himself. He is practical, strong of body, taciturn, with a great, uncharted continent of poetry lost somewhere inside of him. This subterranean spiritual thirst sends out signal flares in fragile moments, as when he takes Ray, with whom he has spent the years leading up to the boy’s puppy-killing adolescence inadvertently constructing a great edifice of relational failure, into the bush, in hopes that the vast, open distances will do for his son what it always does for him.

    Stan intuits God, without ever naming God, in the elements. On a hot night, after Amy, has gone to bed, he remains outside, waiting for a storm to break. When it does, he is, at first, exultant.

    But as the storm increased, his flesh had doubts, and he began to experience humility. The lightning, which could have struck open basalt, had, it seemed, the power to open souls. It was obvious in the yellow flash that something like this had happened, the flesh had slipped from his bones, and the light was shining in his cavernous skull.

    Yet, for all the intimations, God remains elusive. Only at the end, minutes before his death, does Stan receive his revelation. He is sitting in a chair, old and failing, amidst the trees in the yard outside his home, where he is accosted by an earnest young man aflame with the Gospel. God, the young man believes, has saved him from a life of women and alcohol. Such conversions crave ratification through the conversions of others, and Stan Parker has been elected. Which means that this most private moment at which his life has, at last, arrived, is threatened by farce. During this encounter, Stan relieves himself of phlegm:

    Then the old man, who had been cornered long enough, saw, through perversity perhaps, but with his own eyes. He was illuminated.

    He pointed with his stick at the gob of spittle.

    “That is God,” he said.

    As it lay glittering intensely and personally on the ground.

    Stan is not being impertinent. He is responding to a great unveiling. The bewildered young man departs, leaving behind some tracts which he hopes will finish the job he, and of course the Holy Spirit, have begun, while Stan continues to stare at the spittle. Only now, a “jewel”.

    A great tenderness of understanding rose in his chest. Even the most obscure, the most sickening incidents of his life were made clear. In that light. How long will they leave me like this, he wondered, in peace and understanding.

    The “gob of spittle” passage is famous in Australian literature. It is one of the very few overtly religious moments in what is a deeply religious novel. White’s God, when finally called forth, is, as we see, viscous. What’s more, this God has emerged from Stan himself. Quite literally. In all of White’s work, and in this book in particular, it is only when his characters cease resisting their messy, humbling, secreting bodies, and the often ramshackle lives through which those bodies stumble, that they encounter what they had always believed lay beyond themselves. What they encounter is no less transcendent for this, no less luminous. It is a difficult truth. But then, Patrick White is known as a “difficult” writer. Difficult, too, because he uses a richly allusive, subtly symbolic language to coax his reader into a parallel awareness. Sentence by sentence, phrase by phrase, White nudges his reader awake, quietly drawing attention to  something just off the page, or behind it. Listen to how White evokes Stan, on that last afternoon, sitting:

    That afternoon the old man’s chair had been put on the grass at the back, which was quite dead-looking from the touch of winter. Out there at the back, the grass, you could hardly call it a lawn, had formed a circle in the shrubs and trees which the old woman had not so much planted as stuck in during her lifetime. There was little of design in the garden originally, though one had formed out of the wilderness. It was perfectly obvious that the man was seated at the heart of it, and from this heart the trees radiated, with grave movements of life, and beyond them the sweep of a vegetable garden, which had gone to weed during the months of the man’s illness, presented the austere skeletons of cabbages and the wands of onion seed. All was circumference to the centre, and beyond that the worlds of other circles, whether crescent of purple villas or the bare patches of earth, on which rabbits sat and observed some abstract spectacle for minutes on end, in a paddock not yet built upon. The last circle but one was the cold and golden bowl of winter, enclosing all that was visible and material, and at which the man would blink from time to time, out of his watery eyes, unequal to the effort of realizing he was the centre of it.

    I quote at length because White does a better job than I could ever do of summation. We have come to know this rangy garden, these trees. By drawing attention, at the novel’s end, to its inception as a kind of horticultural flailing, and its subsequent emergent design, White invites us to consider at least two layers of meaning beyond the the physical. First, there is the life of this couple, more like the garden described than the garden itself. Notice that here Amy is named “the old woman”. Throughout the book, at intervals, Stan and Amy are stripped of their given names and called simply, “the man”, “the woman”, rendering them at once mythic and fragile. We’ve met them before, most memorably in The Book of Genesis. We watch these two ordinary, unformed, people, grope their way toward each other, generally missing each other by a mile. We watch as they try, and fail, to be the parents their children need. We watch Amy become possessive, while Stan grows ever more distant. We watch their erotic lives travel along incompatible arcs of meaning. The flood they survive and the fire they survive, leave scars on their souls far more lasting than those left on the land on which they survive. And that land, on which they were the first to settle, will not long bear up under the ugly banality of urban encroachment. Along the way they learn that death is always a violence, regardless of its means, and that death can mean something quite other than the demise of the body. As they approach the end of their great meander, not far in miles, but metaphysically epic, they find they have arrived at a life. Its been going on all along, of course. They can look across it now, find its design, and a kind of undeclared grace. Through their story, White draws our attention to a process, the mystery of creation itself. What wasn’t, now is, simply for something having been “stuck in” along the way. It is as if, at the end of the novel, we are witnesses to its birth.

    And how about all those circles. This passage’s most obvious antecedent is the famous final paragraph of The Dead, in which Joyce lifts his lens to ever more encompassing circles of snowfall. In White’s homage, Stan sits at the heart of a veritable mandala: a circle of shrubs and trees first, then the vegetable garden, then the paddocks, and, the last but one, the “cold and golden bowl of winter.” Like a Hasid, White refuses to name the final circle. And yet, it is into this circle that all is, finally, subsumed.

     

    II.  THE BACKGROUND: THE REPATRIATED PATRICK WHITE LANDS ON HIS BEHIND

    White might never have written The Tree of Man. The poor reception, in Australia, of his previous novel, the brilliant The Aunt’s Story, had all but disposed him never to write again. But then, Australia itself began to encroach upon his always negligible peace of mind. In his autobiographical essay, “The Prodigal Son”, he writes about the inception of The Tree of Man:

    Then, suddenly, I began to grow discontented. Perhaps, in spite of Australian critics, writing novels was the only thing I could do with any degree of success; even my half-failures were some justification of an otherwise meaningless life. Returning sentimentally to a country I had left in my youth, what had I really found: Was there anything to prevent me packing my bag and leaving…? Bitterly I had to admit, no. In all directions stretched the Great Australian Emptiness, in which the mind is the least of possessions, in which the rich man is the important man, in which the schoolmaster and the journalist rule what intellectual roost there is, in which beautiful youths and girls stare at life through blind blue eyes, in which human teeth fall like autumn leaves, the buttocks of cars grow hourly glassier, food means cake and steak, muscles prevail, and the march of material ugliness does not raise a quiver from the average nerves.

    It was the exaltation of the ‘average’ that made me panic most, and in this frame of mind, in spite of myself, I began to conceive another novel. Because the void I had to fill was immense, I wanted to try to suggest in this book every possible aspect of life, through the lives of an ordinary man and woman. But at the same time I wanted to discover the extraordinary behind the ordinary, the mystery and the poetry which alone could make bearable the lives of such people, and incidentally, my own life since my return.

    This discontent, and the urgency to ameliorate it through writing, had a background which he did not reveal until late in his life, when age had, if anything, sharpened his powers of ruthless self-observation. In his memoir, Flaws in the Glass, he recounts a  Damascene moment which, like Stan’s final transfiguration, was at once intensely personal and catalyzed by farce. Actually, in White’s case, slapstick: White and his partner, Manoly Lascaris, were raising Schnauzers on a six-acre farm on the outskirts of Sydney. He hadn’t written anything for nearly seven years, and had grown used to it. A few days before Christmas 1951, a frail but kicking faith broke through while feeding the dogs in a downpour…

    During what seemed like months of rain I was carrying a trayload of food to a wormy litter of pups down at the kennels when I slipped and fell on my back, dog dishes shooting in all directions. I lay where I had fallen, half-blinded by rain, under a pale sky, cursing through watery lips a god in whom I did not believe. I began laughing finally, at my own helplessness and hopelessness, in the mud and the stench from my filthy old oilskin.

    It was the turning point. My disbelief appeared as farcical as my fall. At that moment I was truly humbled.

    …and from this faith, the need to carve out a place for it in a world that seemed at odds with it. From the opening sentences of The Tree of Man, we hear him wrestling to draw forth “the extraordinary behind the ordinary”, what Annie Dillard calls “Holy the Firm”, a mystical substance on which the physical world is made, but which is, itself, in touch with God. On every page you can hear White explaining to himself that Advent-season ass-plant in the mud, smeared with what he could no longer resist.

    Worse things, by far, have taken root in the mud. This is a very great book. I hope you read it.

     

    III.  AN INTERVIEW WITH WHITE’S BIOGRAPHER, DAVID MARR: “THE LIFE AND FAITH OF PATRICK WHITE”