Thursday, May 30, 2019

Anatole Broyard

I wonder now: Were my sisters and I ever unself-conscious or oblivious of our parents? Did we think in terms of ”candor”? I ’m sure that, except for the traditional infant pose on a white fur rug, we would not have dreamed of allowing ourselves to be photographed without clothes. We felt that it was bad enough to have to show our naked faces. Like primitives, we were afraid of having our personalities sucked up into the camera.

We would not have been able to understand why anyone would want to photograph us playing, for playing was not yet seen as a socially significant activity. For us, a photograph was more like a visit to the doctor, or a preview of Judgment Day. We got all dressed up, scrubbed our hands and faces, tried to look as neutral as possible in order to deny what we could not anticipate. Our chins were generally lifted, as if we were trying to keep our heads above water.

And, of course, we were photographed in black and white. I don’t know whether there was color film in those days, but we didn’t think of life as colorful; it would not have occurred to us. Nor did we find it necessary to smile, we smiled only when something was funny. Under the searching eye of the camera, we stood up straight, our hands at our sides, our feet together like little soldiers, as in "Onward, Christian Soldiers.” 

We gazed out of our faces like people who had never seen themselves m a mirror. We did not think of ourselves as having "identities." These photographs were simply ”stages on Me's way," as Kierkegaard called one of his books. We obeyed the camera as if it were a gun and bore witness to the stealthy passage of time. We had no idea of embellishing the outward appearance of our lives; I believe we felt that you could not lie to a camera, that it would inevitably show you up.

The circumstances of the pictures were determined more by the available light than by any consideration of the environment. We relied on the sun to supply that light, to be the agent of our reproduction. In the earlier pictures, which were taken in New Orleans, the sun was ferocious. In fact, it rather bleached us out, left us looking pale and insubstantial, like dried flowers.

After we moved to New York, when I was six years old, we were always photographed on the roof of the brownstone in which we lived. My father believed that the roof was the only place where there was sufficient light. While he never found it, he never stopped pursuing brightness. He seemed to doubt the potency of the sun in New York and insisted on facing us directly into it. And of course, we frowned and squinted, and as a result our life looked sadder or angrier than it may have been.

My mother never took our pictures, always my father. She disdained mere images, she had produced the originals. Nor, in most instances, would either of my parents enter the photographs themselves, except for my father’s shadow at our feet. It was as if they felt that with adulthood their lives were completed and needed no further documentation.

Moving back and forth, side to side, shouting contradictory instructions, my father fiddled with the lens and peered through the viewfinder. And though we struggled to maintain our neutral expressions, he sometimes took so long that we betrayed ourselves. Every now and then, there is a picture With a personality peering out, like a deer trapped at night in the headlights of a car.

Once we moved to New York, we inhabited, in the family album, a bleak landscape of tarred surfaces, chimneys, tin cornices and clotheslines. People who did not have backyards hung clothes on the roof in those days, and we were posed against sheets, towels, tablecloths, shirts, dresses, nightgowns, pajamas and underwear. My sisters and I were aware of these intimate articles fluttering behind us and this awareness filtered in some subtle way into our attitudes.

Some time ago, Mary McCarthy wrote that the American personality always looked as if it had just had a bad haircut. That was us. We certainly had bad haircuts. After leafing through the old and new albums, I realize how far Americans have come in making themselves look better. Almost every child today seems attractive, or at least passable looking, in his long hair.

1 think they have lost something, though, in this cosmetic evolution. With our ears sticking out, our unframed faces, our secretive mouths and wary eyes, we looked as if we realized what we were in for, as if we knew that something difficult was expected of us and that we would probably have to try to do it.

I’ve been thinking about the family albums of my children’s children. I suppose that by their time, there will be nothing but movie cameras, that stillness, especially the monumental stillness of my childhood pictures, will be thought unnatural, a morbid shirking of a child’s duty to enjoy himself while he can. Probably there will be television cassettes and the children’s first faltering steps-their first everythings- will be repeated in instant replay.

Then, as American life continues its liberating advance, these tapes will be erased and my grandchildren will step out boldly into the future without the embarrassment of a past.

And

attempt. 

There was the time, for example, when the family drove down from Martha’s Vineyard one wet night to find that we were locked out. Idon’t carry a house key, for the same reason that I never carry coins: I can’t fit them into my jeans. My wife didn’t have her key, either. She is a dancer and likes to call attention to her creativity by disarming little bouts of absent-mindedness. 

My children, whom we had already awakened, were waiting for me to rise to the occasion, to solve the problem in a manner that would provide a model for them all through their lives. My wife stood apart, as if to say, ‘This is where we separate the men from the boys.” In the back of the station wagon, both of our dogs began to bark. 

And

 I dreaded these excursions, these escapades. To me, they were like a suicide pact. Didn’t my parents know that the world was just waiting for a chance to come between us? 

Inside, we were a family, but outside we were immigrants, bizarre in our differences. I thought that people stared at us, and my face grew hot. At any moment, I expected my father and mother to expose their tribal rites, their eccentric anthropology, to the gape of strangers. 

Anyone who saw me with my family knew too much about me. Nobody is so secret about his loves as a boy of six or seven. Why, I wouldn’t even confess my infatuation for a girl on the block, and here I was, exhibiting in public the most intimate relationship I was ever to know. 

To go out with my parents was to suffer for the second time the trauma of birth. My mother, who was mildly stout, might as well have been the Venus of Willendorf, a primitive fertility figure. My father was a rogue male, a creature of such reckless masculinity that I always thought of him as breaking the law. 

While I loved them, I was uneasy about our relationship. It struck me as a terrible incongruity, especially for a boy, to have originated in my mother’s belly. It was such a derivative way for me to have arrived in the world. I would rather have been store-bought, instead of homemade. 

My father flustered me more than my mother, for on him fell the full weight of patriarchy, and he was not a man to shirk it. I remember in particular a boat ride to Bear Mountain. This being a sporting occasion, my father elected to wear a pair of plus fours, or knickers. He even went so far as to pull a beret, another installment in his unpredictability, over his unruly hair. Walking beside him, I shut my eyes, 
guiding myself by the brown. ne lohaen the metal taps on the toes ang &-tip shoes. 

We had come up from New Orleans, where I was born in the French Quarter. For a bel homme, a galant, like my father, it was no simple matter to walk along the street. He had to strut, stretching and swiveling his head on his neck, arching his back and undulating his shoulders, flourishing his arms in counterpoint to his legs. I would watch him out of the comer of my eye and despair. I half-expected him to break into the Camel Walk, the Shimmy Shewobble, the Black Bottom or the Mess Around. 

I wanted desperately to run away from home. My mother and father were too folksy for me, too colorful. Conformity is the first passion of small boys. Originality, if it comes at all, arrives much later. My love for these two misfits, these character actors, was too heavy to bear. 

Eventually, I ran away to Greenwich Village, where no one had been born of a mother and father, where the people I met had sprung from their own brows, or from the pages of a bad novel. We buried our families in the common grave of the generation gap, silenced them with the so-called failure of communication. Parents became our shtick, a whetstone for our wit. Orphans of the avant-garde, we outdistanced our history and our humanity. 

I became an amnesiac, a flimsy Frankenstein monster of pop sociology. Isaw myself as spawned by time, as flies were once thought to be spontaneously generated in offal. I deracinated and rationalized my image. For my new friends and me, parents had become synonymous with the establishment, an outmoded, authoritarian and absurd institution. 

Like every great tradition, my family had to die before I could understand how much I missed them and what they meant to me. When they went into the flames at the crematorium, all my letters of introduction went with them. Now, in my middle age, I understand at last that personality is a conspiracy. I’m grateful to my mother and father for their quirkiness, for this gave me a glimpse of the range of styles, the richness of being. I thank them for their irrationality, which was a grand tour of unmapped territories. Especially, Ilove them for not being modern, not dumping me into the polluted river of progress before I was ready to protect myself. 

Now that I have a wife and family of my own, I’ve begun to feel what it is. When we go out together, I do my own share of strutting, and I wonder how my children feel about it. Am] an embarrassment to them, or an accepted part of the human comedy? Have they joined my conspiracy, or are they just pretending? Do they understand that, after all those years of running away from home, I am still trying to get back? 


The Master

Colm Toibin

Around her and her husband there were always hints and rumours and suggestions. It was part of the time and the place, he thought. Everyone he knew carried with them the aura of another life which was half secret and half open, to be known about but not mentioned. In those years, you searched each face for what it might unwittingly disclose and you listened carefully for nuances and clues. New York and Boston had not been like that, and in London, when he finally came to live there, people allowed themselves to believe that you had no hidden and secret self unless you emphatically declared to the contrary.

He remembered the shock when he first came to know Paris, the culture of easy duplicity, the sense he got of these men and women, watched over by the novelists, casually withholding what mattered co them most.

He had never loved the intrigue.Yet he liked knowing secrets, because not to know was to miss almost everything. He himself learned never to disclose anything, and never even to acknowledge the moment when some new information was imparted, to act as though a mere pleasantry had been exchanged. The men and women in die salons of literary Paris moved like players in a game
of knowing and not knowing, pretence and disguise. He had learned everything from them.

He found the princess a seat, brought her extra cushions, and then offered her a different chair, or indeed a chaise longue which might be more comfortable.

‘At my age,’ she smiled at him, ‘nothing is comfortable.’

and

Holmes clapped him on the back and smiled as if he had just now noticed him. His elevation to the bench seemed to have made him less reserved, if anything. Maybe this was the way, Henry mused, eminent men in their fifties were behaving in America now, but then he pictured William Dean Howells and his brother William and understood that it was merely Holmes who was behaving like this. He tried to explain to Holmes that he had been working on not one but two novels and had not had much company over the previous months other than his servants. Holmes was extolling the landscape and too busy to listen and Henry was suddenly glad that he was staying at Point Hill for only one night. He knew from William and from Howells and others that Holmes had become a famous judge whose theories were discussed in the higher circles of law and politics as the theories of Darwin were discussed by scientists and the clergy. Henry remembered that he had asked William what these theories were and William had put it bluntly that Holmes did not believe in anything and had managed to make this view seem both reasonable and popular. His position was, William said, that he had no position. Howells, on the other hand, was not given to bluntness; he explained merely that Holmes had sought rather forcefully to apply the human and practical element rather than the historical or the theoretical or indeed the moral elements to law. Like Darwin, Howells said, Holmes had developed a theory of winners, but it was his pointed and plain rhetoric that won the day as much as anything else

Saturday, May 11, 2019

Dreadful

On John Horne Burns, by Davis Margolick

"Burns became an important, even a unique, chronicler of gay life in the military, reminding us in real time how, in astonishingly high numbers, homosexuals- or ”dreadfuls," as he called them in his typically camp code- were serving their country at a time when they were officially banned from the military, and long before another generation of traditionalists pretended they’d never been in there. Here, too, Bums’s letters are as important a part of his legacy as his novels, offering forgotten snapshots of GI life-gay GI life abroad, a life that seems quite inconceivable today. Without Burns's letters, how else would we know of soldiers performing Schumann, Brahms, and Gilbert and Sullivan for their fellows in the middle of the North African desert? 
But I learned, too, of the peculiarly erratic combination of explicitness and evasion, high art and clumsy artifice, with which Burns wrote about his own sexuality in those works, and how he so often resorted to the subterfuges of gay men of his time. Bums’s homosexuality simultaneously marked his greatest work, limited his artistic range, hastened his downfall, and, decades later, aided his reemergence as a literary figure of note. With breathtaking speed, he went from being one of the brightest literary lights of his generation-published by a prestigious house, much sought after for blurbs and speeches, photographed by Life and Harper’s Bazaar-to an embittered drunk, living in exile, his talent eroded or blocked, his work brutally ridiculed or rejected, downing cheap cognac and soda prodigiously every night at the bar of a Florentine hotel until, at the age of thirty-six, under murky circumstances in an Italian sea~ side town, he died. His editor at Harper and Brothers, Frank MacGregor, summed it up best: ”A lot of authors don't go any where, but you don't get the extreme that he was-from the top to the very bottom.” 
and---

When he was eight years old or so, MacMackin’s parents divorced. In the manner of the British, his mother took his sister, while young David went with his father- only his father never came for him. After some time had passed, a concerned neighbor contacted his father’s older sister, Olive Templeton, a star of silent pictures. She and her husband took him in, but shortly thereafter-for how long, it’s unclear- MacMackin’s uncle began molesting him. Sometime after that Aunt Olive who had an estate called Trailsend in Canton, Connecticut, not far from Hartford -sent her nephew to Loomis. 
David MacMackin was eccentric, musical, precocious, and effeminate; in a poll the Log once ran for ”Girls I’d Like to be Marooned on a Desert Island With,” he had placed third. He won great fame on the campus by transforming his room, through items picked up in local thrift stores, into a Victorian salon. At some point early on he fell under Bums’s sway, becoming his most devoted disciple. And Burns was his devoted mentor.

and---

He never tired of the monastic images, tedious as they became over several years of correspondence. One particular neologism-a nun’s horrified cry upon hearing one of her sisters collapse at the altar-became Burns all-purpose exclamation, connoting excitement, revulsion, pleasure, resignation, or surprise: Brwaugh! It could also signify something more mundane: Brwaugh. And it could be a noun, appearing in mid-sentence to mean assorted gay activities, or just about anything else: brwaugh. But without a doubt the most crucial word in their private vocabulary wasn’t new at all, but simply repurposed. It was ”dreadful” -in this instance a noun, or more often an adjective, meaning ”homosexual.” Its origins were unclear. Maybe it emanated from Bums’s vast storehouse of literary learning; in one poem Shelley wrote about ”deeds too dreadful for a name”-code, some believe, for homosexuality. Or perhaps it was another of Bums’s playful coinages. But it wasn’t all play: along with the rest of their esoteric vocabulary ”dreadful” was a word that would elude priggish but unimaginative military censors. ”My letters may be censorable, but not for military secrets,” Bums confessed to the Eatons. 

and--- 
He'd grown serlous. 
A letter to MacMackin suggested how he’d sobered up. Suddenly; it was no longer ”Dear Giaour”* or ”Mon tres cher Priapus!" but ”Dear David.” Then he went on to lecture MacMackin on the various foibles of dreadfuls, whom he now and for the first (and only) time in their correspondence called ”homosexuals.” 

Speaking of the army of belles that Plato suggests in the Phaedo, Konrad Heiden has a stinging sentence to the effect that the 20th century homosexual is rarely completely honest with himself. Even If he ever arrives at the point of accepting his bias as merely an incident in his personality, he sets up all sort; of pitiful little compensations. Camping is after all the essence of the tragic spirit contorted into a leer no Greek mask ever knew. He sets up for himself a tinseled world that has nothing to do with any reality, believes himself a golden and divine spirit, gifted beyond other men, and frequently goes over into the realm of art, which soothes the feminine ganglia in him. Unless he has a first-rate mind, merciless self-appraisal, and honesty too large to force his world on a larger one he becomes an artist as warped as his own psyche; and you get ugliness, negation, and nonessentials substituted for the blood of great art. 

In Sodom et Gomorrhe,‘ he went on, ”Miss Proust” had also exposed the dishonesty of modern homosexuals. ”It was a pose which used to irk me in you,” he scolded. (Only once before had he shared his ambivalence about gay culture with MacMackin; it happened a year earlier, after describing his hyperactive dreadful existence in the army. ”With a few exceptions," he wrote, ”the life strikes us as centrifugal, horrifying, and deathmaking.” Still, Burns suggested he had become a kind of guru to other gay soldiers. ”Our sense of empathy is said to be just out of this world by the many dreadfuls who for some reason or other look to us as to an obelisk,” he wrote a month later. “They believe that we’ve happened upon some secret of life lost since the Ptolemies.”) 
and----

Burns became a sort of literary landmark in Florence.
"Florence fiddles while John Horne Burns" is how the local paper put it.