Archives for 2004

“Meanwhile, if I were endowed with wealth, I should start a great advertising campaign in all the principal newspapers. The advertisements would consist of one short sentence, printed in huge block letters–a sentence that I once heard spoken by a husband to a wife: ‘My dear, nothing in this world is worth buying.'”

Max Beerbohm, Mainly on the Air

Without exception, my friends are puzzled by my more than occasional practice of reading biographies from back to front. It puzzles me, too, even though I’ve been doing it for years, and I can’t offer any explanation, however theoretical, for a habit that at first, second, and third glances makes no sense. All I can tell you is that for some reason not yet accessible to introspection, I often prefer to read about a person’s life in reverse chronological order, starting with his death and working backwards to his birth.

That’s strange enough, I suppose, but here’s something even stranger: I read Jeffrey Meyers’ Somerset Maugham: A Life starting with the source notes, after which I read the book itself from last page to first. Once finished, I re-read it in the normal fashion. All this took two days, and now I’m ready for another book.

My guess is that two passes through Somerset Maugham: A Life will be quite enough, not because Maugham’s life wasn’t interesting but because Jeffrey Meyers’ biography is of the sort typically described by tactful critics as “workmanlike.” The same thing could have been said of his previous biographies of (pause for deep breath) Orwell, Conrad, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Edmund Wilson, and Robert Frost. Those are just the ones I’ve read, but there are plenty of others, Meyers being a full-time professional biographer, and here as before, his writing is unfussy but unstylish, his criticism not very insightful. If a great biography is the literary equivalent of a ten-course dinner prepared by a master chef, then Somerset Maugham: A Life is more like one of those freeze-dried meals dished up to astronauts: perfectly edible, even tasty if you’re hungry enough, but more functional than enjoyable. Meyers’ book-reportish summing-up of Maugham’s career will show you what I mean:

Maugham’s current reputation has eclipsed that of his old rivals: Shaw, Wells, Bennett and Galsworthy. More versatile than any modern writer, he wrote outstanding works in every genre: plays, stories and novels, essays, travel books and autobiographies. His exotic settings, engaging characters and riveting plots, his clear style, skillful technique and sardonic narrator, his dramatic flair and grasp of irony continue to attract a wide audience.

Oh, dear.

It occurs to me that reading such a book backwards might be my subconscious way of making it more aesthetically appealing. It definitely adds a touch of suspense, since you keep running into mysterious characters along the way who aren’t fully identified until much later on. But if that’s why I do it, why on earth did I start with the footnotes this time around? Perhaps that’s simply a deformation professionelle of a practicing biographer. I happen to like footnotes, so much so that I made a point of tucking a few choice anecdotes into the notes for The Skeptic: A Life of H.L. Mencken in order to ensure that those who shared my taste would be pleasantly surprised by their perseverance.

For this reason, I was amused to find this testy paragraph in the source notes for Somerset Maugham: A Life:

In his will Maugham specified that none of his unpublished writings should be printed after his death and that no assistance should be given to his biographer. Though the Royal Literary Fund has received all his royalties, they felt no moral or legal obligation to follow the terms of his bequest, and contravened his will by authorizing a biography and by granting permission to publish his letters. Donors who leave money to the fund should be warned that the explicit terms of their will may be completely ignored.

Now that’s my idea of a really superior footnote, well worth digging out of the back matter of a biography. Here’s another:

In a presentation copy of a 1948 reprint of Ashenden, Maugham wrote: “To Raymond Chandler, who has given the author of this book both in sickness and in health, many hours of undiluted happiness.”

Meyers even throws in a bit of dish. This note, for instance, refers to a now-forgotten writer by the name of David Posner who as a young man seduced the elderly Maugham:

Posner–who later married, published some poetry and died in 1985–was drawn to elderly homosexual writers. He once told me that he had courted Thomas Mann in Princeton.

Max Beerbohm could have spun a whole essay out of those two sentences.

As that last note suggests, Maugham led a life generously seasoned with scandal, but he’s not the sort of semi-obscure author who deserves to be remembered only for his sex life. Though I wouldn’t call him a Great Writer by any means, he did turn out a dozen or so first-class short stories whose astringent disillusion and plain, direct prose are as satisfying as a salty snack (I especially like “The Outstation” and “The Alien Corn”), as well as one of the very best comic novels of the twentieth century, Cakes and Ale, whose first sentence can be found in the “Opening Lines, Great” section of my electronic commonplace book: “I have noticed that when someone asks for you on the telephone and, finding you out, leaves a message begging you to call him up the moment you come in, and it’s important, the matter is more often important to him than to you.” How could you not keep on reading after that?

Such a minor master surely deserves to be memorialized in a decent biography, and Somerset Maugham: A Life, if less than scintillating, fills the bill with just enough room to spare. Meyers even manages to find room for a charming Maugham anecdote that I’d never heard. Fittingly, it’s about Cakes and Ale:

He liked it the best of all his books and, when looking for something good to read one evening, remarked: “What a pity that I wrote Cakes and Ale. It would be the very thing.”

Yes, there’s a footnote.

Home for a couple of hours in between Big Bill and Fiddler on the Roof (yes, this is a two-performance day, God help me). Instead of taking a nap, which is what I originally had in mind, I was seized by guilt and decided to catch up on my blogmail, and now it’s all answered, except for a few pieces that (A) require more thought or (B) will eventually get posted on the blog.

How about that? Are you impressed? This do I for my true readers. And now…a shower. Followed by a cab. Followed by Fiddler on the Roof, about which I’ll be writing in next Friday’s Wall Street Journal.

That’s my life. Sounds crazy, no?

Once I wake up, I’ll catch up, but it’s already been drawn to my attention that OGIC and I crashed a very nice party. According to the Literary Saloon:

In this week’s issue (of 19-26 February) of Time Out NY Maureen Shelly offers a literary weblog overview (the article is apparently not available online.) The weblogs she features are: the Literary Saloon, Bookslut
(“a favorite among young writers”), Maud Newton
(“covers a stunningly broad range of literary news”), About Last Night (“offers a more sophisticated take on the book biz”), Beatrice
(“Hogan maintains a civil tone in his critiques, thereby upping his credibility factor”), and the registration-requiring Publishers Lunch.

Needless to say, all the aforementioned blogs are to be found in “Sites to See,” along with plenty of others that are no less deserving of your attention. We admit to being especially pleased, though, to share space with Supermaud, if only because she promised to go see the Milton Avery show at the Phillips Collection in Washington this weekend, then come back and tell us all about it. She’s so cool.

Oh, yes, in case you were wondering, I haven’t opened my mailbox yet. I can’t get up the nerve. Nor have I caught up with my blogwatching. But I will, once I get another chunk of the Balanchine book written, not to mention a full night’s sleep, which I need most desperately. Right at this moment I feel like Leon Trotsky, post-axe.

See you Saturday.

I reviewed the Manhattan Theatre Club’s production of Regina Taylor’s Drowning Crow and Primary Stages’ production of Terrence McNally’s The Stendhal Syndrome in this morning’s Wall Street Journal.

The first was horrible:

According to the program, “Drowning Crow” was “inspired by” Chekhov’s “The Seagull.” Nothing wrong with that, except that what Ms. Taylor really means is “adapted from,” which is another thing altogether. To be sure, the characters are all black and the action has been relocated from Czarist Russia to the Gullah Islands of South Carolina, but otherwise “Drowning Crow” is a near-direct transposition of “The Seagull,” partly recast in slam-poetry English but with large chunks of dialogue left untouched. “I liberally sampled from Chekhov,” Ms. Taylor said in a New York Times interview. “Other times, I just riffed.” (I know a better word.) The result–not to put too fine a point on it–is bizarre, with the characters alternating between jive and translatorese to no obvious purpose or good effect….

The second was a winner:

Mr. McNally has neatly bookended his chief theatrical preoccupations in the titles of the two one-act plays that make up this double bill, “Full Frontal Nudity” and “Prelude and Liebestod.” The second and more substantial half is about a bisexual conductor suspiciously reminiscent of Leonard Bernstein (Richard Thomas), his unfaithful but loving wife (Isabella Rossellini), the sourpuss concertmaster of his orchestra (Michael Countryman), a male groupie (Yul V

Hilton Kramer finally made it to PaceWildenstein’s Rothko: A Painter’s Progress, the Year 1949:

Anyone who’s made a close study of Bonnard’s paintings will have no trouble finding traces of the French master’s aesthetic in the pictures that have now been brought together in the Painter’s Progress exhibition, which focuses on the year 1949. This was the year in which Rothko perfected his own mastery of the paintings he called “dramas,” which most of us regard as some of the most beautiful abstract paintings in the entire modern canon.

It has been admitted that Bonnard was an unlikely figure to influence any painter associated with the Abstract Expressionists, who prided themselves on their independence from the School of Paris. And it goes without saying that Rothko never acknowledged the debt. Yet, as D.H. Lawrence once said, “Trust the tale, not the teller of the tale,” meaning, of course, that a writer’s or artist’s work must be judged on the basis of what it is, not on the basis of descriptive claims. Unless prompted by Rothko, I doubt that any visitor to Rothko: A Painter’s Progress would regard this beautifully installed exhibition as a show of “dramas.” But thanks to what we now know about Rothko’s interest in Bonnard, this exhibition turns out to be an even richer experience than it might otherwise have been….

Read the whole thing here. The show is only up through Feb. 23, so if you didn’t go when I wrote about it last month (and if not, why not?), don’t delay.

It rained.

The hour is an enormous eye.

Inside it, we come and go like reflections.

The river of music.

Enters my blood.

If I say body, it answers wind.

If I say earth, it answers where.

The world, a double blossom, opens:

Sadness of having come.

Joy of being here.

I walk lost in my own center.

Octavio Paz, “Concert in the Garden”

Not only did I get up at 4:30 yesterday morning, but I didn’t go to sleep prior to that time (hence it would be closer to the truth to say that I got out of bed at 4:30 yesterday morning). There followed hours and hours and hours of travel, on the ground and in the sky, at the end of which I somehow managed to get to Maria Schneider’s Hunter College concert on time. It was worth it, absolutely.

I’m too tired to go on at length, but the centerpiece of the evening was the world premiere of “Concert in the Garden,” a new piece Schneider wrote for her big band plus Gary Versace on accordion and Luciana Souza on vocals. The title comes from a poem by Octavio Paz (see above), and the music is a Messiaen-like tapestry of idealized bird calls–a full-fledged piece of jazz impressionism, unusually rich and involving.

After the intermission, the band played a revised version of Bulerias, Soleas y Rumbas, premiered last January at Lincoln Center, an occasion about which I wrote as follows in my Washington Post column:

Jazz at Lincoln Center has never done anything more important than commissioning this piece. It’s no secret that Schneider is the foremost big-band composer of her generation, but this powerful large-scale work, in which she blends jazz and flamenco with the skill of an alchemist, is so good that I hesitate to limit its significance by calling it big-band music, or even jazz. It is as tightly woven and emotionally compelling as a symphony, and I think it ought to be seriously considered for next year’s Pulitzer Prize in music. For that matter, I’m damned if I know why Schneider hasn’t received a MacArthur Fellowship. I can’t think of anyone in jazz–or any other art form–who deserves it more.

This time around, Schneider added a flamenco dancer, La Conja, to thrilling effect, and the piece itself was even more impressive on second hearing. If you missed it, the Maria Schneider Orchestra will be going into the studio in a couple of weeks to record a new album, on which Bulerias, Soleas y Rumbas will figure prominently.

Warning: Schneider is no longer selling her CDs in stores, so to buy this one, you’ll need to go to her Web site and sign up. Do it now–and while you’re at it, mark your calendar for March 18, April 29, and June 17, the three remaining performances in the Maria Schneider Orchestra’s Hunter College concert series. I really, truly flew all the way back from Smalltown, U.S.A., just to hear this one, and I’d do it again in a heartbeat. Next time, I’ll make sure I don’t have to.